[Cites 0, Cited by 0]
Rajasthan High Court - Jodhpur
Sunil Kumar vs Rajasthan Public Service Commission ... on 5 February, 2026
Author: Vinit Kumar Mathur
Bench: Vinit Kumar Mathur
[2026:RJ-JD:6532-DB]
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT
JODHPUR
D.B. Spl. Appl. Writ No. 1127/2024
1. Sunil Kumar S/o Shri Sahab Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
Vpo Rampura Urf Ramsara, Ward No. 7, 3 Rwd, Tehsil
Tibbi, District Hanumangarh.
2. Sachin Maiya S/o Shri Biradi Chand, Aged About 29 Years,
Ward No. 07, Near Charan Wasi, Ratangarh, Churu.
3. Dilip Kumar Dapkra S/o Shri Shivnarayan Dapkra, Aged
About 32 Years, Buradiya Jhala, Tehsil Gangadhar, District
Jhalawar.
4. Rana Ram S/o Shri Ishara Ram, Aged About 42 Years,
Vpo Leelsar, Tehsil Chouhtan, District Barmer.
5. Satyapal S/o Shri Hardeva Ram, Aged About 41 Years,
Ward No. 6, Vpo Padampura, Tehsil Nohar, District
Hanumangarh.
6. Tara Swami D/o Shri Keshri Chand Swami W/o Shri
Ramawatar Swami, Aged About 33 Years, 151, Bapu
Asaram, Shobhasar, Tehsil Sujangarh, District Churu.
7. Sunita Kumari D/o Shri Girdhari Singh W/o Shri
Suryanarayan Bhuriya, Aged About 38 Years, 292,
Prabhat Nagar, Near Sangia Public School, Banar Road,
Jodhpur.
8. Karishma D/o Shri Anand Budania, Aged About 29 Years,
Dhani Pachera, Sardarshahar, Churu.
9. Achala Ram S/o Shri Bala Ram, Aged About 27 Years,
Panwariya Ka Tala, Leelsar, Tehsil Chouhtan, District
Barmer.
10. Sanwla Ram S/o Shri Jerama Ram, Aged About 34 Years,
Mukam Mokni Kheda, Post Bavtara, Tehsil Sayala, District
Jalor.
11. Devendra Singh S/o Shri Prakash Singh, Aged About 37
Years, Upari Koldi, Asrawa, Tehsil Makrana, District
Deedwana-Kuchaman.
12. Kamala D/o Shri Mansi Ram W/o Shri Jodhraj, Aged About
39 Years, Dulchas, Via Bisau, Tehsil Mandawa, District
Jhunjhunu.
13. Shri Niwash S/o Shri Babulal, Aged About 41 Years, Vpo
Danji Ki Dhani, Jusriya, Via Makrana, District Nagaur.
14. Rajesh Kumar S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 38
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 02:59:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 09:55:46 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6532-DB] (2 of 6) [SAW-1127/2024]
Years, Ward No. 6, Dhikali Jatan, 9 Ggm, Tehsil Nohar,
District Hanumangarh.
15. Manga Ram S/o Shri Mula Ram, Aged About 38 Years,
Thirod, District Nagaur.
----Appellants
Versus
1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer Through Its
Secretary.
2. State Of Rajasthan, Through Director, Secondary
Education Rajasthan, Bikaner.
3. Hanuman Singh S/o Shri Hari Singh, Aged About 30
Years, Vpo Bhikarniya Kallan, Tehsil Degana, District
Nagaur.
4. Dilip Dan S/o Shri Bhanwar Dan, Aged About 36 Years,
Vpo Charanwasi, Asalkheri, District Churu.
5. Punam Chand S/o Shri Pema Ram Nai, Aged About 30
Years, Ward No. 7, Lalamdesar, Bara, District Bikaner.
6. Sandeep Kumar S/o Shri Om Prakash, Aged About 40
Years, Near Little Heart Public School, Street No. 31,
Ward No. 5, Jaipur Road, Rawatsar, District
Hanumangarh.
7. Pooni D/o Shri Deeparam, Aged About 28 Years, Vpo
Dolaniyo Ki Dhani, Sadari, Peelwa, District Jodhpur.
8. Hemlata Godara D/o Shri Rana Ram W/o Shri Prabhu
Ram, Aged About 29 Years, Kadwasaron Ki Dhani, Ramsar
Ka Kua, District Barmer.
9. Hanuman S/o Shri Simrtha Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Vpo Adarsh Kekar, Tehsil Sedwa, District Barmer.
10. Harish S/o Shri Goma Ram, Aged About 28 Years,
Dheromoni Potliyon Ki Dhani, Baytu, District Barmer.
11. Prem Singh S/o Shri Padam Singh, Aged About 29 Years,
Tiwariyo Ki Dhani, Hariya Dhana, Bilara, District Jodhpur.
12. Kawaraj Ram S/o Shri Mota Ram, Aged About 29 Years,
Kasoombala Bhatiyan, Baytoo, Gida, District Barmer.
13. Bhagvant Singh S/o Shri Prakash Dan, Aged About 35
Years, Nathusar, Tehsil Loonkaransar, District Bikaner.
----Respondents
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 02:59:49 PM)
(Downloaded on 06/02/2026 at 09:55:46 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6532-DB] (3 of 6) [SAW-1127/2024]
For Appellant(s) : Mr. CS Kotwani
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Khet Singh Rajpurohit
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINIT KUMAR MATHUR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA
Order
05/02/2026
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present special appeal has been filed against the order
dated 23.05.2024, whereby the writ petition preferred by the
petitioners-appellants was dismissed alongwith three other
connected writ petitions.
3. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently submits that
the objections filed by the petitioners-appellants to the question
Nos.22, 29 and 62 were not dealt with by the expert committee
and, therefore, the Rajasthan Public Service Commission has
committed an error while upholding the answers to the aforesaid
disputed questions in the writ petition. Learned counsel submits
that the Commission has not entertained and examined the
objections filed by the petitioners-appellants on the disputed
questions. He submits that if the objections were not properly
considered, why the RPSC has at all invited the same. He,
therefore, prays that the present appeal may be allowed and the
respondent - RPSC may be directed to re-examine the validity of
the answers of the disputed questions in the light of the objections
submitted by the petitioners-appellants.
4. Learned counsel for the RPSC submits that the writ petition
was dismissed in limine and therefore, a detailed reply has been
filed by the Commission to the present special appeal. In the
reply, they have submitted in detail that the objections filed by the
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 02:59:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6532-DB] (4 of 6) [SAW-1127/2024]
petitioners-appellants were placed before the expert committee
and the expert committee after examining the same, has decided
the answers of the disputed questions. He submits that the
grievance of the petitioners-appellants is unfounded and based on
incorrect facts. He, therefore, prays that the present appeal may
be dismissed.
5. We have considered the submissions made at the bar and
have gone through the relevant record of the case including the
order impugned.
6. Learned Single Bench has dismissed the writ petition on the
ground that since the disputed questions were referred to the
expert committee and the expert committee on the material
available on record has dealt with the objections submitted by the
petitioners and alike persons. After examining the objections, the
expert committee has opined the correct answers to the disputed
questions. Learned Single Bench has held that the courts are not
competent to sit over and interfere with the expert opinion of the
examiners. However, this Court will substitute its own opinion over
the opinion of the experts.
7. We are of the view that the appellants have raised a limited
point that their objections have not been placed before the
experts. However, the point raised by the appellants are found to
be factually incorrect in view of the reply filed by the RPSC,
wherein, it has been specifically mentioned that the objections
raised by the appellants were presented before the experts.
8. For brevity, para Nos.9 to 11 of the reply are reproduced
hereunder:-
"9. That the answering respondent received large
number of objections from the candidates and accordingly,
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 02:59:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6532-DB] (5 of 6) [SAW-1127/2024]
the answering respondent constituted an expert committee
of subject experts to examine all the objections and key
answers published by way of model answer key. The entire
material and evidences placed by the candidates was
considered and thoroughly examined by the subject
experts and after considering all the objections with
relevant material and prepared the expert report question
wise according to which the objections raised towards
question no. 22 to the option 4 in the question paper was
found correct and also found the aforesaid question well
within the syllabus. So far as question no. 29 of paper - I is
concerned, it is humbly submitted that in all 674 objections
were received by the Commission and accordingly, the
respondent Commission constituted an expert committee
of subject experts to examine all the objections for
validation of key along with the material placed by the
candidates. The subject experts thoroughly considered all
the objections and finally opined option 1 as right answer
of the question no. 29 of paper I. The expert committee
further opined that the material placed by the candidates is
based on general meaning and are not substantial and
further, the correct option being 1 is based and accepted
on the basis of glossary of administrative terms published
by the Government of India and as such, the option 1 has
been found correct. The expert committee further opined
that the question is fully described and as per the syllabus
with clear language and finally concluded as 1 right option
of the question no. 29 of paper 1 and as such the objection
is totally unfounded.
10. That similarly the question no. 62 wherein in all 372
objections were received by the Commission and
accordingly, the expert Committee has thoroughly
considered each of the objections & material and finally
opined that the question in language Hindi and English is
rightly from so also it is well in the syllabus under the head
of Indian polity section and under the point of silent
features of the Indian Constitution and further, the
Committee has opined that the objections are incorrect and
the right option 4 is correct to the question no. 62 of paper
I. Thus, it is very much clear that all these objections
raised by the candidates were thoroughly examined by the
subject experts and has categorically considered the
relevant material in support of their opinion and
accordingly, now, it is not open for the petitioners to
challenge the wisdom and experts opinion in the matter of
answer key.
11. That so far as the question paper II of subject Hindi
is concerned, various candidates other than the petitioners
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 02:59:49 PM)
[2026:RJ-JD:6532-DB] (6 of 6) [SAW-1127/2024]
submitted their objections towards question no. 12, 13 and
138 that too were also forwarded to the expert committee
constituted by the Commission which has thoroughly
considered each and every aspect of the objections and
consequently, the question no. 12 wherein 1013 objections
were received by the Commission were placed before the
expert committee and upon thorough consideration, the
option 3 of the said question was found correct on the
basis of relevant evidences and material. Similarly, the
objections received towards question no. 13 were also
examined by the subject experts and after thorough
examination, the experts reached to the opinion that the
option 1 is the right option for question no. 13 and
accordingly, objections were discarded by the subject
experts while relying on various books and materials
available with it. The last objection with regard to question
no. 138 of paper II wherein 744 objections were received
by the Commission and most of the objections were
pertaining to more than one option is right. The aforesaid
question and its options were categorically taken into
consideration by the experts and upon taking into
consideration, the material and nature of objections the
expert committee has finally validated option 4 as right
answer of the question no. 138 of paper - II."
9. In view of the detailed reply filed by the RPSC and the fact
that the matter was placed before the expert committee for their
opinion on the answers to the disputed questions, we are not
agree with the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
appellants.
10. The present special appeal writ has no merit and the same is
hereby dismissed.
11. Stay petition as well as other pending misc. applications, if
any, also stand disposed of accordingly.
(CHANDRA SHEKHAR SHARMA),J (VINIT KUMAR MATHUR),J
10-nitin/-
(Uploaded on 06/02/2026 at 02:59:49 PM)
Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)
