Gourav Kumar Meena S/o Vijay Singh Meena, Aged About v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its

Judgment

1. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Ajmer.

2. Pushpendra Meena S/o Sohan Lal Meena, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Village Kho Ghati, Post Bainaira, Tehsil Bassi, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1291846).

3. Anuj Bhardwaj S/o Brijendra Bhardwaj, Aged About 25 Years, R/o S-132, 80 Feet Road, Mahesh Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1313347).

4. Lokesh S/o Shishupal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Chak 5 Tsb, Post Jakharawali, Tehsil Pilibanga, District Hanumangarh, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1223508).

5. Rahul Sharma S/o Murari Lal, Aged About 24 Years, R/o 115, Block A, Narayan Vihar, Ajmer Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1624607). [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (2 of 12) [SAW-453/2024]

6. Ravindra Kumar S/o Lichhman Ram, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Vpo Adaksar, Tehsil Kuchamancity, District Kuchamancity, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1641882).

7. Deepak Choudhary S/o Gopal Lal Choudhary, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Vpo Mandolai, Tehsil Todaraisingh, District Tonk, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1665352).

8. Himanshu S/o Ramcharan, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Behind Bus Stand, Nagar, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1628478).

9. Arti Choudhary D/o Ashok Kumar, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Vpo Jatoli Thoon, Tehsil Deeg, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1624489).

10. Rajesh Kumar Bairwa S/o Harlal Bairwa, Aged About 43 Years, R/o Village Jodhya, Tehsil Sikrai, District Dausa, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1186003).

11. Lalit Kumar S/o Girraj Singh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village Shahpur, Post Paharsar, Tehsil Nadbai, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1102918).

12. Vikash Kumar Punia S/o Jhabar Mal Punia, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Dhani Duntgradha, Post Khejroli, Tehsil Chomu, District Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1306259).

13. Aishwarya Mathur D/o Jitendra Mathur, Aged About 29 Years, R/o B-33, Shankar Vihar, Sawai Gaitor, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1251812).

14. Nirmal Detha S/o Govind Dan Detha, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Sawan Magra, Borunda, Pipad City, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1410206).

15. Krishna Kumar Singodia S/o Kanhaiya Lal Singodia, Aged About 32 Years, R/o Near Railway Gate No. 4, Chandbas, Sujangarh, District Churu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1181356).

16. Laxmi Kararwal D/o Sohan Lal Kararwal, Aged About 35 Years, R/o Ward No. 13, Naya, Swami Vivekanand Chowk, C/o Prabhu Dan, Gedhar, Suratgarh, District

Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1549792).

17. Deepika Jain D/o Norat Mal Jain, Aged About 29 Years, R/o 34, Nahar Bhawan, Shri Nakoda Gulkand Product, Mahajan Mohalla, Pushkar, Kishanpura, Ajmer, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1000185).

18. Bhairu Lal Gurjer S/o Dudha Gurjer, Aged About 41 Years, [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (3 of 12) [SAW-453/2024] R/o Nipaniya Gujaran, Bar, Jhalawar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1351173).

19. Amit Kumar Vaishnav S/o Durga Lal Vaishnav, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Ratlai, Jhalawar, Rajasthan.(Roll No. 1353651)

20. Krishna Kumar Chauhan S/o Man Singh, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Village Pana, Tehsil Uchchain, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1106226).

21. Manju Jangir D/o Janardan Prasad Jangir, Aged About 46 Years, R/o Man Mandir, E-245 K.k. Colony, Near Man Mandir, Bikaner, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1177014).

22. Unique Poonia D/o Sunil Kumar, R/o Bhainsali, Churu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1180608).

23. Harshita Modi D/o Sanjay Modi, Aged About 24 Years, R/o H. No. 873, Ward No. 13, Chawla Chowk, Old Abadi, Sriganganagar, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1554303).

24. Aamir Shoail S/o Iqbal Hussain, Aged About 27 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Bissau, District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1365674).

25. Karni Pratap Palawat S/o Bhawani Singh Palawat, Aged About 27 Years, R/o B-108, Arya Nagar, Extn., Mrulipura, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1269028).

26. Govind Prajapat S/o Ram Narayan Prajapat, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Ward No. 24, Indira Colony, Phalodi, District Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1410275).

27. Hanuman Vishnoi S/o Tulchharam Vishnoi, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Ward No. 25, Nai Bus Stand, Shatry Colony, Ruchit Bhawan, Shahatri Basti, Dungarpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1331677).

28. Amit Kumar Shrimali S/o Dileep Kumar Shrimali, Aged About 37 Years, R/o 1 K 20, Brahma Kumari Ashram Ke Piche, Housing Board Area, Gyansarovar Vatika Ke Pass, Ashok Nagar, Dungarpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1213247).

29. Vikas Charan S/o Jai Singh Charan, Aged About 28 Years, R/o 215, Karni Kripa, Gali No. 6, Vidhya Nagar, Jodhpur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1399185).

30. Priyanka Sharma D/o Shyam Sunder Sharma, Aged About 43 Years, R/o 9/123, New Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1329588). [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (4 of 12) [SAW-453/2024]

31. Namarta Sharma D/o Munijan Sharma, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Plot No. 51, Sector No. 8, Vidhyadhar Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1247248).

32. Sajjan Kanwar D/o Sardar Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Vpo Charanwas, District Nagaur, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1640514).

33. Yatendra Kumar Meena S/o Chhote Lal Meena, Aged About 33 Years, R/o Basnkho, Jaipur Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1243842).

34. Chandrashekhar Meena S/o Bhagwan Sahai Meena, Aged About 34 Years, R/o 78, Meena Basti, Edalpur, District Karauli, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1653256).

35. Rishi Raj Meena S/o Bhagwan Sahay Meena, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Edalpur, District Karauli, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1657292)

36. Mahesh Kumar Paliwal S/o Bhawani Shankar Paliwal, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Brahmpuri, Gaon Gurha, Rajsamand, Rajasthan. (Roll No. 1492023) ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Aamir Khan For Respondent(s) : Mr. Yuvraj Samant HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE INDERJEET SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BHUWAN GOYAL 18/08/2025 Order

1. In all these appeals, the appellants have challenged the order dated 22.03.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in various writ petitions filed on behalf of the appellants- petitioners before the learned Single Judge.

2. The writ petitions were filed by the appellants-aggrieved candidates against the final answer key issued by the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (5 of 12) [SAW-453/2024] as RPSC) of the preliminary RAS and RTS Combined Competitive Examination, 2023.

3. Facts in brief are that the appellants-writ petitioners applied for appearing for the said examination in pursuance to the advertisement issued on 28.06.2023 by the respondent-RPSC. The Preliminary examination pursuant to the said advertisement was conducted by the RPSC on 01.10.2023 and model answer key was issued on 01.10.2023, thereafter, the RPSC called the objections on the same day i.e. 01.10.2023. It is to be noted here that in the bunch of petitions before the learned Single Judge as many as there were 569 petitioners (appellants herein) whereas only few petitioners about 93 have filed the objections to the model answer issued by the RPSC.

4. Thereafter, the result (final answer key) of RAS, 2023 examination (preliminary) was declared on 20.10.2023. Being aggrieved thereof, petitioners-appellants filed various writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, some of the petitioners even without raising objections to the model answer key also directly filed writ petitions. The learned Single Judge after considering the contentions raised by the petitioners dismissed all the writ petitions vide common order dated 22.03.2024. Hence these appeals have been preferred by the appellants-writ petitioners being aggrieved by the order passed by the learned Single Judge dated 22.03.2024.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the learned Single Judge has failed to properly consider the contentions raised by them and failed to examine the correctness of the final answer key issued by the RPSC. Learned counsel further submitted that [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (6 of 12) [SAW-453/2024] learned Single Judge has failed to consider various documents submitted in support of their contentions alongwith the writ petitions which were not considered at all.

6. Learned counsel further submitted that various questions must have been deleted as either there were multiple right answers to the questions offered to the candidates or there were typographical mistakes in framing of the said questions. Learned counsel further submitted that each and every question should have been examined by the learned Single Judge on the basis of material which was supplied alongwith the writ petitions.

7. Learned counsel further submitted that before the learned Single Judge correctness of answers of 20 questions was also raised whereas, learned Single Judge illustratively examined the correctness of answers of seven questions only. Lastly, learned counsel prayed that the appeals be allowed and the order passed by the learned Single Judge be set aside and the respondentRPSC be directed to revise the result of preliminary examination.

8. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent opposed the appeals and submitted that 476 appellants-writ petitioners directly approached this Court without filing any objection before the RPSC to the model answer key issued by them on account of which the experts have no occasion to examine their objections.

9. Learned Advocate General further submits that the process initiated by the RPSC was very much clear and transparent and there was no procedural irregularity. He further submits that neither there is any breach of rules nor any allegation of malafides [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (7 of 12) [SAW-453/2024] was raised against them by the appellants-writ petitioners before the learned Single Judge.

10. Learned Advocate General further submits that after declaring the result of preliminary examination, the final examination of the RAS Mains Examination, 2023 has already been conducted, result of which is still awaited. Learned Advocate General further submits that about seven lakhs candidates have applied to appear in the preliminary examination and about four lakhs fifty thousand appeared in the preliminary examination and about nineteen thousand candidates were shortlisted on the basis of result of preliminary examination to appear in the main examination in which they have already appeared and the result as already stated above is awaited of the RAS Mains examination, 2023.

11. In support of the contentions, learned Advocate General relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. Reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 where in it has been held as under:- "30.The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (8 of 12) [SAW-453/2024] been committed;(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”

12. Similarly, the Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 where in it has been held as under :- “11. Though re-evaluation can be directed if Rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of reevaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Anr.: (2010) 6 SCC 759) Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations [See-Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Ors. : (2010) 8 SCC 372). 12. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal and Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors.: (2018) 8 SCC 81. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (9 of 12) [SAW-453/2024] and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.

13. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of is the in appointments continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel.”

13. He further relied upon the recent judgment passed by Division Bench of this Court in the matter of Mahendra Kumar Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 986/2022, wherein, it has been held as under: "Without entering into the correctness of the historical fact concerning question No.135, which essentially is a matter to be considered only by experts and not by the Court, more so when it is a historical fact with regard to the movement and stay of Saint Peepa during the period from 1362 to 1377, we find from a bare reading of these texts that Saint Peepa moved from one place to other and he not only stayed at Toda, but also at Gagron. However, on the conspectus of the aforesaid relevant information given in various texts, which both the parties have referred to, the Experts of the subject decided to hold that option “(D) Gagron”, should be treated as the correct answer key. [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (10 of 12) [SAW-453/2024] In our considered view, in the light of the principles which have been laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in catena of decisions, referred to hereinabove, the Writ Court finds itself unable to further go into this question and the enquiry must stop here only. In the celebrated decisions, referred to above, it has been authoritatively laid down that interference by the Court with regard to correctness of the answer key would be permissible within scrutiny/reevaluation, only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed. It has also been held that Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics. Further, it has also been settled as a clear legal position that Court should presume correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption and in the event of a doubt, benefit should go to the examination authority, rather than to the candidate. Applying the aforesaid principles, at best, it can be said to be a case of doubt and, therefore, benefit should go to the examination rather than to the authority, candidate."

14. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

15. These appeals filed on behalf of the appellants deserves to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly the present matter relates to the challenge to framing of questions and their answers as well which have been duly examined by the expert committee constituted by the respondent- RPSC on the objections raised to the model answer key received by them; secondly, all the appellants-writ petitioners have not raised any objection to the correctness of [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (11 of 12) [SAW-453/2024] answers and only a few candidates about 93 have raised the objections to the questions which was duly considered by the expert committee and we are not inclined to interfere with the view taken by the expert committee with regard to correctness of the questions; thirdly, the appellants-writ petitioners failed to show any procedural irregularity/illegality , if any, committed by the RPSC and further no allegation of any malafides has been alleged by the appellants-writ petitioners against the members of the expert committee; fourthly, in view of the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (supra) and Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra), in our considered view no case is made out for interference by this Court in the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge as the learned Single Judge has illustratively examined the correctness of various questions which have been raised and has also examined the validity of the questions and lastly, in view of the judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Mahendra Kumar Jat Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra), in case of any doubt on the correctness of answers inspected by the expert committee, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidates and step by steps process has been undertaken of the examination by the RPSC; firstly the preliminary examination and thereafter main examination, whereas the present matter relates to preliminary examination, therefore, in the larger interest of a huge number of candidates who appeared in final (Mains) examination, we find no case in favour of the present appellants- writ petitioners. [2025:RJ-JP:32137-DB] (12 of 12) [SAW-453/2024]

16. Hence, all these appeals are dismissed. All the pending application(s) also stand disposed of. (BHUWAN GOYAL),J (INDERJEET SINGH),J JYOTI /73