No Judicial Intervention Warranted In Dispute: Rajasthan HC Dismisses Pleas Challenging Validity Of Answer Key For Dental Medical Officer Exam

The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a batch of Writ Petitions challenging the validity of the final answer key for the exam of Dental Medical Officer.

The Jaipur Bench said that the experience of experts cannot be overlooked and hence, no judicial intervention is warranted in the dispute

A Single Bench of Justice Sameer Jain remarked, “… the respondents in the Information Booklet, 2024 for MODDRE, 2024 have categorically stated the syllabus for the said examination wherein all the subjects studied by the candidates during their BDS graduation programme including the webinars, conferences, seminars, articles and latest publications/editions of books & articles of eminent national and international authors; that the respondent-RUHS has tendered reasonable justification qua each disputed question; that the experience of the experts cannot be overlooked, hence, this Court is of the view that no judicial intervention is warranted in the instant dispute.”

Advocate Gitesh Joshi represented the Petitioners while AGC Archit Bohra represented the Respondents.

Facts of the Case -

The Rajasthan University of Health Science (RUHS) vide notification invited applications for 172 posts of Medical Officer (Dental) and subsequently, a revised notification qua the said recruitment was released. Thereafter, by a successive notification, the number of intake qua the said port was increased to 209. The Petitioners appeared in the examination for the said posts wherein, the said examination was objective/Multiple Choice Questions (MCQs) based with number of questions as 100. Consequentially, the Respondents issued the Model Answer Key as per the master paper for perusal of the candidates.

Consequently, the Respondents issued a press note on the official website inviting objections with regard to the discrepancies in the Model Answer key. For submission of objections, a time window was provided, and the candidates were required to submit their objections along with substantial/relied upon study material through offline mode. The counsel representing the Petitioners had argued that the impugned action of the RUHS, in not adequately and correctly examining the objections raised by the Petitioners is patently arbitrary, unjust and unfair, thereby being violative of the fundamental rights of the Petitioners, as enshrined under the Constitution.

The High Court in view of the above facts, observed, “… as long as all the candidates who took the said examination, are treated equally viz-a-viz the system of evaluation in place, sans discrimination, then no grievance qua the impugned examination subsists. It is well settled law that in academic matters, the experts word is the last word. The court neither has the requisite expertise nor infrastructure to go into the correctness of such decisions. As a result, the court cannot sit in judgment over those findings of experts and examine the material on record and arrive at its own conclusions as a court of appeal.”

The Court added that an unending litigation for employment in public posts, in connection with which, the career trajectory of so many young individuals is coherently tied up with, cannot be permitted to be in abeyance for so long, that the end result subsumes and overshadows the duress and hardship faced by the litigants.

“As a result, the answer key should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong, albeit the same should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. However, such was not the case in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as demonstrated above”, noted.

The Court said that, if it is a case of doubt, unquestionably the answer-key must be preferred and only if it is beyond the realm of doubt, the possibility of judicial review must be entertained.

“… it can be noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments as cited above has categorically opined that the Courts have limited jurisdiction to exercise the powers enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and as per the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam especially when the matters pertain to academic matters wherein the experts’ word is the last word; that the court neither has the requisite expertise nor infrastructure to go into the correctness of such decisions; that the respondent-RUHS has duly complied with and has followed the due process of conducting the examination, requesting objections and tendering reasonable justification qua the same”, it concluded.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the Petitions.

Cause Title- Pankaj Yadav v. Principal Secretary & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:47575)

Appearance:

Petitioners: Advocates Gitesh Joshi, Kaleem Ahamed Khan, Vikas Kabra, B.B.L Sharma, Ram Pratap Saini, Aamir Khan, Akshit Gupta, Pragya Seth, Nakul Bansal, and R.K. Jain.

Respondents: AGC Archit Bohra, Advocates Lipi Garg, Ram Singh Bhati, Mohd. Ashfaq Khan, Shama Khan, and Rekha Jain.

Click here to read/download the Judgment