Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Rajasthan · body

2026 DAILYLAW 1724 (RAJ)

NITAMBA PAHWA D/O SHRI HARIOM v. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

CW/3291/2026 · 2026-02-23

Anand Sharma

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

[2026:RJ-JP:8161] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 3291/2026 Nitamba Pahwa D/o Shri Hariom, Aged About 21 Years, R/o Near Chabda Jain Mandir, Diwan Mohalla, Kaman, District Deeg, (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through The Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, Rajya Krishi Prabandh Sansthan, Durgapura, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. The Principal Secretary, Department Of Personnel, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Raj Kumar Goyal, Adv. with Ms. Priyanka Paliwal, Adv. For Respondent(s) : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND SHARMA Order 23/02/2026 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner participated in Class-IV recruitment examination and as per comparison of OMR sheet with the model answer key published by the respondents, her marks ought to have been much more than actually awarded to the petitioner. Learned counsel submits that petitioner has also submitted a representation for correction of marks-sheet of the petitioner, yet no step whatsoever has been taken by the respondents. 2. It is settled proposition of law that writ petition cannot be entertained for adjudicating the disputed question of facts. This Court is not an expert to supplant the action taken by body of [2026:RJ-JP:8161] (2 of 2) [CW-3291/2026] experts and the examination agency. Therefore, no interference is called for in the instant writ petition. 3. However, at this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner sought liberty to make a fresh representation for consideration of respondent-Rajasthan Staff Selection Board. 4. In view of above, writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Secretary, Rajasthan Staff Selection Board, who shall consider and decide the representation of the petitioner. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on merits of the case. 6. Pending application(s), if any, stand(s) disposed of. (ANAND SHARMA),J Jatin /42