Court’s Interference In Correctness Of Answer Key Is Permissible Only If Material Error Has Been Committed: Rajasthan HC
The Rajasthan High Court observed that the interference of the Court in the correctness of the answer key is permissible only in exceptional cases where a material error has been committed.
The Jaipur Bench observed thus in a batch of two special appeals preferred against the common order passed in a batch of writ petitions.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Shubha Mehta held, “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 the scope and scrutiny/re-evaluation, 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.”
The Bench added that the 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.
Advocate J.M. Saxena represented the appellants while AAGs Rajesh Maharshi and Sunil Beniwal represented the respondents.
Brief Facts -
An advertisement was issued by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board (RSMSSB) inviting online applications for direct recruitment to the ‘Patwari’ post. The competitive written examination was held and a preliminary answer key was issued, inviting online objections towards the same. Final answer key was then issued based on the decision of the Expert Committee on various objections raised by the candidates regarding the same and it followed publication of select list. The appellants filed their respective writ petitions before the High Court, questioning the decision of the Expert Committee.
The Single Judge came to the conclusion that, except for question Nos. 69 and 98 of Question Booklet Series-104D, wherein for question No. 98 of Question Booklet Series-104D, based on concession by the Board, none of the objections raised by the candidates fall within the parameters of interference, as laid down by the Supreme Court and Division Bench of the Rajasthan High Court and, therefore, held that except for the two questions, no case for interference is made out. The petitions were partly allowed, however, two candidates were aggrieved by the same and they filed the intra-court appeal but the same was dismissed. Hence, this was challenged before the Division Bench.
The High Court in view of the above facts noted, “… it, therefore, emerges as settled legal position that though re-evaluation in the absence of there being any rule/scheme governing the examination is not permissible in law, in exceptional cases, where the answers are found to be demonstrably wrong, the injustice caused to the candidates has to be undone.”
The Court said that the scope of judicial review is limited to exceptional cases where the Court finds that model answer keys are demonstrably wrong on the face of it without involving inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization.
“The learned Single Judge upheld the decision of the Expert Committee taking into consideration that the Expert Committee upon due consideration of the material available with it, came to the conclusion that the correct answer key would be option (D) i.e. Gagron as the place where the cave of Saint Peepa Ji is situated. … It would thus be seen that while several materials from different texts and other materials along with objections were placed for consideration of the Expert Committee, the Expert Committee in its wisdom, which undoubtedly consists of experts in the subject, has taken a decision that option “(D) Gagron” should be treated as correct answer key being the place where the cave is situated”, it further noted.
The Court remarked that it would not assume the role of expert to arrive at a decision different from that taken by the Expert Committee, particularly when the decision taken by the Expert Committee is based on an authentic text, on which not only the appellants but the respondents, both rely.
“… 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. … it can be said to be a case of doubt and, therefore, benefit should go to the examination authority, rather than to the candidate”, it concluded.
Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeals and refused to interfere with the decision of the Single Judge.
Cause Title- Mahendra Kumar Jat & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JP:26893-DB)
Appearance:
Appellants: Advocates J.M. Saxena, Sanjeev Kumar Singhal, Vishal Raj Mehta, Vandana, and Chaitanya Kumar Gehlot.
Respondents: AAGs Rajesh Maharshi, Sunil Beniwal, Advocates Nalin G. Narain, Udit Sharma, Vinit Sanadhya, and Tananjay Parmar.
