Disclaimer: This has been reported after the availability of the order of the Court and not on media reports so as to give an accurate report to our readers.
Rajasthan High Court: In an application filed by the petitioner challenging model answers of competitive examination for senior teacher for which she had appeared, a Single Judge Bench of Ashok Kumar Jain, J., held that though the petitioner established that three questions from Paper 1 were wrongly assessed and expert advice lacked a concrete basis, no relief could be granted as it would have wide repercussions on all candidates.
The Court dismissed the petition and stated that reference relied upon by Rajasthan Public Service Commission (RPSC) should be non-controversial, particularly looking to the age of artificial intelligence where fake and false information is readily available on all the sources of internet.
Read more: Empowering Educators: Unpacking Laws, Landmark Judgements, and Rights of Teachers
Background
In the present case, the petitioner filed an application for post of senior teacher (Sanskrit) pursuant to an advertisement issued by Respondent 2- RPSC. As per scheme and syllabus of competitive examination for Senior Teacher, the selection was based on written examination carrying 500 marks. There were two papers — Paper 1 of 200 marks and Paper 2 of 300 marks.
After the papers were conducted, the model answer key was released inviting objections to which the petitioner did not submit any but after final answer key, she approached the Court challenging the final answer key in respect of Question Nos. 3, 26, 30, 90, and 95 of Paper 1 and Question No. 84 of Paper 2.
Analysis
Question No. 3 of Paper 1
The Court stated that the question concerned, pertaining to Nagnechi Mata Mandir, was deleted by RPSC on the ground that the temple in the question concerned was situated in Jodhpur fort, and there was a village in Barmer District, therefore two answers were correct. The Court further stated that due to ambiguity, the experts recommended its deletion.
Considering petitioner’s argument that Hindi book published by Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy Ministry of Education, Government of India, titled as “Rajasthan Ka Itihas, Sanskriti, Parampara and Virasat” mentioned that the said temple was established at Nagana Village, which is in Barmer District, the Court stated that the experts relied upon internet content titled as Mission Kuldevi (Indian castes and their Gods) which mentioned that Nagnechi temple is also situated in Jodhpur fort.
Thus, the Court held that there was no substance in the recommendation of the expert and that it was not only against the history of Rajasthan, but also contrary to the material published and recognised by the government. The Court observed that the deletion was illegal and illogical.
Question No. 26 of Paper 1
The Court noted that the question, concerning 18th National Jamboree, was deleted in the final answer sheet, but in the model answer key, the correct option was given.
The Court stated that the petitioner relied upon the Jamboree history published on the website of Rajasthan Scouts and Guides and contended that the given option was incorrect, as Rajasthan had already hosted the National Jamboree in 1956 at Jaipur.
The Court further observed that the RPSC acted on the opinion of experts, who found the question to be ambiguous and capable of multiple interpretations as while one source suggested that Rajasthan got the opportunity to host the Jamboree after 67 years, the official publication of the Government of Rajasthan mentioned that the opportunity arose after 66 years, referring to the event held from 4 January 2023 to 10 January 2023 at Rohat, Pali.
The Court held that the question suffered from ambiguity, thus, the deletion of the question by RPSC was held to be justified.
Question No. 30 of Paper 1
The Court noted that the question pertained to the approximate percentage of the world’s population living in the Northern Hemisphere, for which the experts of RPSC treated option (4), that is, 90 per cent, as correct based on newspaper articles.
The Court observed that the petitioner relied upon the Class 12th Geography book published by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, which is an authenticated and prescribed study material in schools, wherein it is stated that approximately 85 per cent of the world’s population resides in the Northern Hemisphere, while 15 per cent resides in the Southern Hemisphere.
The Court further found that the experts had based their opinion on online newspaper articles without proper verification, instead of relying on standard academic sources. The Court stated that such reliance raised doubts regarding the competency and approach of the experts in selecting appropriate references.
Thus, the Court held that none of the given options were correct, and the question ought to have been deleted.
Question No. 90 of Paper 1
The Court noted that the question concerned was regarding the Ahar culture and was deleted by RPSC, however, in the model answer key, option (3), that is, red & black urn, was indicated as correct.
The Court observed that the experts and RPSC relied upon the book “Rajasthan Ka Itihas”. However, on perusal of the same book, the Court found that it clearly mentioned that the Ahar culture is associated with red and black ware (urn).
Thus, the recommendation of the experts was contrary to the very material relied upon by them. The Court stated that the deletion was unwarranted and a serious error.
Question No. 95 of Paper 1
The Court noted that the question pertained to the work of Amir Khusro in which the invasion of Chittor by Alauddin Khilji was described.
The Court observed that the experts relied upon the book published by Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, wherein it was mentioned that Amir Khusro, who accompanied Alauddin Khilji during the attack on Chittor, described the invasion in Tarikh-i-Alai (Khazain-ul-Futuh). This indicated that both option (1) and option (2) referred to the same work, thereby making both answers correct.
The Court further noted that the petitioner also relied upon the same source, which corroborated that the invasion was described in Tarikh-i-Alai (Khazain-ul-Futuh).
Thus, the Court held that the question had multiple correct answers, and the deletion was justified.
Question No. 84 of Paper 2
The Court noted that the petitioner challenged the question concerned on the ground that it was out of the syllabus. However, the Court observed that the petitioner had not raised any objection immediately after the examination or upon publication of the model answer key.
Further, the Court noted that several candidates had raised objections to the answer key, out of which 34 objections specifically alleged that the question was out of syllabus. These objections were duly considered by experts. Upon examination, the experts referred to relevant academic sources and concluded that the topic formed part of the prescribed course at the university level, and the material concerned was included in books recommended for graduation studies.
Thus, the Court held that it could not be said that said question was out of the syllabus.
Issue
The Court stated that the issue involved in the case at hand was whether the petitioner was entitled to seek relief.
The Court stated that “the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution, and it enables the Constitutional Court to examine the legality, procedural fairness, and reasonableness of administrative actions. However, the principle is subject to certain limitations particularly when its involvement of expertise of the subject or the domain expert and requires technical expertise, wherein the doctrine of restraint is applicable.” The Court further stated that in such circumstances and as a writ court, the Court must be careful and cautious when reviewing administrative decisions.
The Court stated that “it is expected from the RPSC to ensure that the subject experts are persons having good academic record with excellent academic expertise. Moreover, the reference relied upon by them is non-controversial, particularly looking to the age of artificial intelligence where fake and false information is readily available on all the sources of internet.” Further, the Court deprecated the practice of the experts relying upon newspaper articles like “Washington Post” or “Hindustan Times” in arriving at a conclusion of a question as well as the practice of the expert to answer and reject the objections in one line and that too without assigning a convincing reason.
The Court stated that “the petitioner has not filed any objection after publication of model answer key, therefore, she has no right to challenge the questions which she has attempted and few of them were changed after publication of model answer key.”
Decision
The Court stated that though petitioner was able to establish that three questions of Paper 1 were wrongly assessed by the RPSC and that the expert advice was not based upon a concrete material, but despite all the petitioner was not entitled for any relief on any of the ground as the exercise would involve a large-scale repercussion on all candidates.
Thus, the Court dismissed the petition at hand.
[Poonam Garg v. State of Rajasthan, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9572 of 2024, decided on 27-3-2026]
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Petitioner: Arihant Samdaria, Advocate
For the Respondent: Devansh Sharma, Dy. G.C. and Shreyansh Jain, Advocate
