[2025:RJ-JP:41230-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14781/2025 Laiba Noor D/o Sultan Ahmad, Aged About 26 Years, R/o G-112 Jagat Puri, Ravi Das Marg, Krishna Nagar, New Delhi. ----Petitioner Versus 1. The Honble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar General. 2. The Honble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan, Through Registrar (Examination). ----Respondents Connected With D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14462/2025 Meghna Sharma D/o Shri Murari Lal Sharma, Aged About 32 Years, Permanent Resident Of Near New Shyam Temple, Pratibha Nagar, Churu Presently Residing At S-5, Madhuban Colony, Plot No. 23 Barkat Nagar, Jaipur 302015 ----Petitioner Versus 1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Through Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court - New Building, Dangiyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342001 2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Rajasthan High Court - New Building, Dangiyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342001 ----Respondents D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15273/2025 1. Preeti Vyas D/o Lt. Roop Kishor Vyas, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Kumhar Mohalla, Ganaheda Pushkar, Rajasthan 305022 2. Rajat Kumar Garg S/o Shri Sunil Kumar, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Shyam Sarowar Colony, Near Kachahari Road, Bayana, District Bharatpur, Rajasthan-321401. 3. Nikita Barkesya D/o Balbir Singh, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Village Sesam, Ward No. 2 Via Khoor Sikar, Rajasthan-332023 [2025:RJ-JP:41230-DB] (2 of 5) [CW-14781/2025] 4. Jayanti Jeya D/o Mr. Ranjay Kumar Sinha, Aged About 29 Years, R/o F-14/16, Second Floor, Sector-15, Rohini, Delhi, North West, Delhi. ----Petitioners Versus 1. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur Through Registrar General, Rajasthan High Court - New Building, Dangiyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342001. 2. The Registrar (Examination), Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur, Rajasthan High Court - New Building, Dangiyawas Bypass, Jodhpur, Rajasthan 342001. ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Shantanu Ms. Sara Parveen For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Kant Sharma HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 09/10/2025 1. The present writ petitions preferred by the petitioners state that in the preliminary examination conducted by the High Court for the post of Civil Judge Cadre-2025, there are several questions’ answer options, mentioned in the model answer key which were corrected but in the revised answer key the same have been changed or questions have been deleted, resulting in the petitioners being ousted from participating in the mains examination. 2. Learned counsels have vehemently argued that the decision taken by the committee relating to question Nos.5, 31, 35, 51, 84, 96, 97 and 99 of booklet series 'A' is not just and proper. In order to demonstrate these facts, the learned counsels have taken us to the various questions and options which they asserted to be the [2025:RJ-JP:41230-DB] (3 of 5) [CW-14781/2025] correct options/answers and also to the answers which the committee has accepted with reference to the judgements of the Hon’ble Apex Court and the various provisions laid down under the relevant books cited before us. It is stated that the Examination Committee has committed palpable error in treating wrong answers as correct. They have also made submissions that several questions which originally mentioned the correct answers in the model answer key, had been wrongfully deleted. The learned counsels have argued that the candidates who have appeared in the examination and have, as per their submission, given correct answers have not been allowed and have been ousted from participating in the mains examination. 3. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14781/2025-Laiba Noor, the question Nos. 5, 31, 35, 51, 68, 84, 96, 97 and 99 and the final answer key given in respect to that has been assailed. 4. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14462/2025-Meghna Sharma, apart from the aforesaid questions, for question No. 12 the final answer key has been assailed. 5. In D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15273/2025-Preeti Vyas, apart from the aforesaid questions, for question No. 79 the final answer key has also been assailed. 6. We find ourselves unable to examine afresh the submissions, once we have reached to the conclusion in the case of Mannu Yadav vs The High Court of Rajasthan & Anr. (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.13876/2025) wherein, the minutes of the Expert Committee were called upon in relation to one question No.79 and we find that once the Expert Committee has deliberated on the questions and their answers objected to, there is no [2025:RJ-JP:41230-DB] (4 of 5) [CW-14781/2025] occasion for this Court to presume the role of the Experts. In Mannu Yadav (supra), we have held as under: “4. In view of the expert committee report, we find ourselves in no capacity to re-examine the report of the Expert Committee. It is settled law that we, as Judges, would not be experts to give our view relating to an Expert Committee report. Suffice it to say that the Expert Committee report is based on an opinion of a professor of Hindi, as one of the main Members of the committee. The question was relating to Hindi Grammer. In view thereto, there is no occasion to take a different view by us while exercising the power under judicial review. 5. The law in this regard is settled law. It would be apposite to notice the view of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ranvijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors-(2018) 2 SCC 357, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr.-(2018) 7 SCC 254, Kavita Bhargava & Ors. Vs. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court & Ors., Richal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors- (2018) 8 SCC 81 and Kanhya Lal Sain Vs. Registrar Examination, RHC-2016 (2)RLW 1370 (Raj), where a similar view has been taken. 6. On behalf of learned counsel for the petitioner, it has been submitted that in the case of Anjali Goswami & Ors. Vs. Registrar General, Delhi High Court- Writ Petition (C) No.963/2019, the Delhi High Court was dealing with the challenge to the correctness of the errors in the answer key of the preliminary examination, where the examination committee had awarded bonus marks to all the candidates who appeared in the examination and revised answer keys in respect of one of the questions. The Delhi High Court directed to award one mark to the candidates who had opted for the other option as the correct answer where two correct answers were mentioned in a question. 7. The facts of the said case, as above, are therefore, different from that of the present case as there is only one correct answer and i.e. option No.1 and not option No.4 and would not be appreciable.” 7. Learned counsel has also invited our attention to the observations made by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in SLP No.8128-8129/2022-Komal Soni Vs. The High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan & Anr., to submit that due caution should be taken. [2025:RJ-JP:41230-DB] (5 of 5) [CW-14781/2025] 8. We find that the Apex Court in the case of Komal Soni (supra) has made following observations: “In the present case, there were some discrepancies in some of the questions and the answers found and therefore the matter was referred to the Expert Committee. The Expert Committee submitted the report and proposed the deletion of four questions. Therefore, when a conscious decision was taken thereafter by the High Court, relying upon the report submitted by the Expert Committee, and the four questions were deleted, we see no reason to interfere with the same. The objections raised by the individuals have been dealt with in extenso by the Expert Committee and only thereafter it was suggested to delete four questions. In that view of the matter, as such, we see no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment and order(s) passed by the High Court. The Special Leave Petitions stand dismissed.” 9. In the present case, keeping in view the aforesaid observations, we find that the High Court has been careful in constituting an expert body committee with relation to each subject and experts have deliberated and given their final verdict relating to the answers. The said opinion of the Expert Committee has been accepted by the High Court and accordingly, the result was declared. We have also called upon the Expert Committee’s report and are satisfied with the exercise conducted by the Expert Committee. The report of the Expert Committee is being handed over back to the learned counsel for the respondent-High Court. 10. Keeping in view the aforesaid, we find that no interference is warranted in the writ petitions and the same are, accordingly, dismissed. 11. All pending applications also stands disposed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ GAURAV/RAHUL/153-155