Judicial Review Limited in Academic Matters; Petitioner's Plea for Revised Answer Key Dismissed
In a significant judgment delivered by the Rajasthan High Court, the bench comprising Justices Arun Monga and Sunil Beniwal dismissed a writ petition filed by Khushbu Choudhary, an aspirant for the Rajasthan Judicial Services. Choudhary sought judicial intervention to quash the results and final answer key of the Preliminary Examination for Recruitment to the Civil Judge Cadre, 2024, and requested a revised result and category-wise list of selected candidates.
The petitioner appeared in person, arguing that several objections raised regarding specific questions and answers in the examination were not adequately addressed by the Expert Committee. Despite her efforts to demonstrate perceived errors in the answer key, the court found her claims unsubstantiated and upheld the Expert Committee's decision.
The judgment emphasized the limited scope of judicial interference in academic matters, noting that courts should not act as appellate authorities over decisions made by specialized committees in competitive examinations. The bench remarked that such interference is warranted only if manifest arbitrariness or perversity is established, which was not the case in this instance.
The court addressed various objections raised by the petitioner, including the deletion of two questions due to ambiguity, and found the approach of the Expert Committee to be uniform and non-discriminatory. The petitioner had also challenged the interpretation of rules regarding double jeopardy and the principle of 'Ejusdem Generis,' which the court found to be correctly handled by the committee.
Despite demonstrating a clear understanding of the legal principles involved, the petitioner failed to secure marks above the prescribed cut-off, falling short of qualifying for the next stage of the recruitment process. The court noted that allowing individual grievances post-result declaration would unsettle the recruitment process and adversely affect selected candidates who have already been appointed.
While dismissing the petition, the bench appreciated the petitioner's diligence and clarity of thought in presenting her case, extending best wishes for her future endeavors in the legal field.
Bottom Line:
Judicial interference in competitive examination results should be limited and exercised only in exceptional cases where a clear and indisputable error is established.
Statutory provision(s): Section 300 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
Khushbu Choudhary v. Rajasthan High Court, (Rajasthan)(DB) : Law Finder Doc id # 2869533
