[2026:RJ-JP:13458] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 9572/2024 Poonam Garg W/o Sh. Gaurav Kumar Garg, Aged About 34 Years, R/o Ward No. 15, Behind Bus Stand, Janta Colony, Deoli, Tonk (Raj.) ----Petitioner Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Secretary, Department Of Secondary Education, State Secretariat, Bhgwan Das Road, Jaipur (Raj.) 2. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Through Its Secretary, Jaipur Road, Ajmer (Raj.) ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Arihant Samdaria For Respondent(s) : Mr. Devansh Sharma, Dy.G.C. with Mr. Shreyansh Jain HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK KUMAR JAIN Order REPORTABLE 27/03/2026 1. Instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with following prayer: "In conspectus of the aforesaid state of facts it is humbly prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to accept and allow this writ petition and A. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction, quashing and setting aside the final answer key dated 29.2.2024 of master paper of General Knowledge Examination to the extent of deletion of Question Nos. 3, 26, 90 and 95 and consequentially direct the RPSC to correctly mark these questions i.e. Question 3 - Option (2), Question [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (2 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] 26- Option (4), Question 90- Option (3), Question 95- Option (1). B. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction, quashing and setting aside the final answer key dated 29.2.2024 of master paper of General Knowledge Examination to the extent of Question No. 30 being demonstrably erroneous and consequentially direct the RPSC to delete Question No. 30. C. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction, quashing and setting aside the final answer key dated 29.2.2024 of master paper of Sanskrit Examination to the extent of Question No. 84 being out of syllabus and consequentially direct the RPSC to delete Question No. 84. D. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction, directing the RPSC to revise the marks of the petitioner after making aforementioned modifications in the final answer key and consequentially direct RPSC to re-issue the final selection list and waiting list accordingly. E. Issue an appropriate writ order or direction, directing the respondents to appoint the petitioner as Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in case she obtains the necessary cut-off marks pursuant to modification of the final answer key with all consequential benefits along with interest @ 18% p.a. F. And pass any other order which this Hon'ble Court deem fit and proper in facts and circumstances of the case in favor of the Petitioner. G. Award Cost of petition. 2. The brief facts giving rise to filing of this writ petition is that petitioner has filed an application for post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) pursuant to advertisement dated 05.04.2022 issued by RPSC (respondent no. 2). As per scheme and syllabus of competitive examination for Senior Teacher, the [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (3 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] selection is based on written examination carrying 500 marks. There were two papers and paper no.1 was of 200 marks whereas paper no. 2 was of 300 marks. The scheme of these papers was as under: "Scheme and syllabus of competitive examination for senior teacher The Examination shall carry 500 marks. There will be two papers. Paper-t shall be of 200 marks and Paper-ll shall be of 300 marks. PAPER-I 1. The question paper will carry maximum 200 marks. 2. Duration of question paper will be 2.00 hours. 3. The question paper will carry 100 questions of multiple choices. 4. Paper shall include following subjects:- (i) Geographical, Historical, Cultural and general knowledge of Rajasthan. (ii) Current Affairs of Rajasthan (iii) General knowledge of world and India (iv) Educational Psychology. 5. Negative marking shall be applicable in the evaluation of answer. For every wrong answer one third of the the marks prescribed for that particular question shall be deducted. Explantion: Wrong answer shall mean an incorrect answer or multiple answers. 6. The minimum qualifying marks for each paper shall be 40%. Provided that the percentage fixed as above shall be relaxed by 5% for the candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. PAPER-II 1. The question paper will carry maximum 300 marks. 2. Duration of question paper will be 2 Hours 30 Minutes 3. The question paper will carry 150 questions of multiple choices. 4. Negative marking shall be applicable in the evaluation of answers. For every wrong answer one third of the the marks prescribed for that [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (4 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] particular question shall be deducted. Explantion: Wrong answer shall mean an incorrect answer or multiple answers. 5. The minimum qualifying marks for each paper shall be 40%. Provided that the percentage fixed as above shall be relaxed by 5% for th candidates belonging to the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes. 6. Paper shall include following subjects:- (i) Knowledge of secondary and senior secondary standard about relevant subject matter. (ii) knowledge of graduation standard about relevant subject matter. (iii) Teaching methods of relevant subject. Syllabus and Scope of Papers:- The syllabus and scope of paper for the examination will be as prescribed by the Commission/Rajasthan Selection Board/Appointing Authority as the case may be, from time to time and wil be intimated to the within the supulated time in the manner a Commission/Rajasthan Staff Selection Board/Appointing Authority, as the case may be, deems fit." 3. Afterwards, the model answer key was released inviting objections. The petitioner has not submitted any objection on any of the question(s), but after final answer key, she has filed the instant writ petition challenging the final answer key in respect of question nos. 3, 26, 30, 90, and 95 (model question paper) of paper no.1 and question no. 84 (model question paper) of paper no.2. 4. Learned counsel for petitioner submitted that the petitioner has challenged final answer key dated 29.02.2024 issued by respondent no. 2 on factual ground. He further referred judgment in case of Pankaj Raj vs. State of Rajasthan and another, S.B. Civil Writ Petition no. 4700/2019 and submitted that though the jurisdiction of court under article 226 of the constitution of India, is narrow as per settled law [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (5 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] and no interference with regard to a public examination on ground of incorrect evaluation of answers to questions, but jurisdiction of this Ho'ble court is not excluded and the court can examine the correctness of the answers and their source as revealed by the RPSC. He further submitted that the reply and the material submitted by RPSC clearly demonstrate that source and the reliance placed by RPSC was not only erroneous but contrary to settled proposition. He also submitted that the petitioner is placing reliance upon the source derived from the Government publication and also the books as published by Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, and other material relied and used by the government institutions to impart education to the children. 5. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has referred Question no. 90 of Paper no. 1 and submitted that the petitioner is placing reliance upon the book published by Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, which is a publication by the Government body and as per the published material, the option was available and deletion of such question is absolutely arbitrary and unwarranted. He further referred Question no. 30 of Paper no. 1 and submitted that as per the answer adopted by respondent no. 2, option no. 4 (90%) was declared as correct, whereas a textbook of geography for class XIIth published by Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer (RBSE) clearly demonstrates that 85% of the population of the world resides in northern hemisphere, while 15% of the population resides in southern hemisphere. [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (6 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] He further submitted that the RPSC has placed reliance upon unverified material i.e. article published on internet and same is against the basic fundamental to the evaluation process of public examination. 6. Learned Counsel has further referred to Question no. 26 and submitted that in 1956, National Jamboree was held in Jaipur, whereas after 67 years, Rajasthan has hosted 18th National Jamboree at Rohat in Pali district of Rajasthan with theme "Progress with Peace". He submitted that the option no. 4 was incorrect and same was correct answer, but question was deleted. He also submitted that deletion of Question nos. 3, 26, 90 and 95 were erroneous and correct answers to these questions was option nos. 2, 4, 3 and 1 respectively. He further submitted that Question no. 30 was decided with the option that option no. 4 is correct, whereas none of the options is in conformity with the information as available in the textbook. He also submitted that question no. 30 is required to be deleted, but same was not deleted by respondent no. 2. 7. Learned counsel of petitioner has primarily raised ground of arbitrary and unnecessary deletion of question nos. 3, 26, 90, and 95 of paper no. 1. He also raised objection about question no. 30 of paper no. 1 on the ground that said question is palpably and demonstrably erroneous. Learned counsel has also submitted that question no. 84 of paper no. 2 (Sanskrit) is required to be deleted on the ground that the [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (7 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] question is out of syllabus. He further submitted that as per book "Vedic Sukht Sangraha" published by Jagdish Sanskrit Pustakalaya, Jaipur, the question no. 84 is not prescribed in the syllabus for the colleges, therefore, deletion of question no. 84 is warranted. At last, he submitted that the petitioner has secured 341.90 marks and if correct evaluation was taken place in accordance with proper answers, then the petitioner would be one of the successful candidates, but arbitrary and non-methodological approach has resulted in discrimination with petitioner. 8. Aforesaid said contentions were opposed by learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents. They placed reliance upon their reply and submitted that after declaration of result the petitioner has no right to challenge question paper on any of the ground. 9. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 2 has placed reliance upon reply filed by them and submitted that as per ratio laid down in cases of Ran Vijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 357, UPPSC vs Rahul Singh; (2018) 7 SCC 254, HPPSC Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr.; (2010) 6 SCC 759, Basavaiha (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Ors; (2010) 8 SCC 372 when the petitioner has not filed any objection to the model answer key, then she has no right to challenge final answer key. He also submitted that after the examination, a model answer key was published inviting objections from the [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (8 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] candidates, but petitioner was not one of them, who filed objections. He further submitted that after the submission of objections, same were examined by the committee of experts and on the basis of report submitted by the experts, a decision was taken to delete questions numbers 3, 26, 90 and 95 of paper-I. 10. Learned counsel for respondent No. 2 while placing reliance upon judgment in case of Pawan Kumar and others versus State of Rajasthan and Ors., SB Civil writ petition No. 18377/2018 and submitted that unnecessary interference, particularly when no objections were filed by the petitioner, would certainly create problem for recruiting agency like RPSC. He also submitted that the law over the point is well settled that when an objection to the model answer key of public examination are not filed before the examining body within the notified time for the purpose, the petition at the instance of such candidate is not maintainable. 11. Learned counsel further submitted that question Nos. 3, 26, 90 and 95 were deleted as per recommendation of an expert and there is no arbitrary decision by RPSC. He also submitted that option No. 4 to question No. 30 was declared as correct in model answer key and after examination, same was declared as correct in the final answer key, which was published retaining the option as mentioned in model answer key. He also referred to question No. 84 of paper No. 2 and [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (9 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] submitted that as per expert this was not out of syllabus, therefore same was retained. He also submitted that deletion of questions will equally impact all the candidates and in case the decision is applicable universally, then it will affect the future of all candidates, therefore, the petitioner cannot claim that if one answer to the question is changed, then only her fate will be effected. 12. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material placed on record. Also considered the judgment as referred by learned counsel for the parties. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner has referred order dated 23.04.2019 in SB Civil Writ Petition No. 4700/2019 Pankaj Raj and Ors. versus State of Rajasthan and Ors. (supra) and connected matters were decided by a coordinate bench of this court wherein writ petitions are allowed with following directions: "(i) the conclusions of the expert committee/RPSC with regard to the correct answer/option to question no.11 and 22 of model question paper at the RAS/RTS preliminary examination, 2018 are demonstrably wrong. Question nos. 11 and 22 of the model question paper at the RAS/RTS Preliminary Exam, 2018 are directed to be deleted. (ii) The respondent RPSC is directed to re- evaluate the result at the RAS/RTS Pre. Exam, 2018 afresh in view of the direction hereinabove." 14. Aforementioned judgment was challenged before the Division Bench by filing DB Special Appeal (Writ) no. 697/2019 and [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (10 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] by order dated 29.05.2019 the order dated 23.04.2019 was set aside. The writ petitioners in SB Civil Writ Petitions have approached Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing SLP (Civil) no. 13622-13624/2019 and same was also dismissed on 10.06.2019. Thereby the order passed in DB S.A.W. was upheld. The ratio as referred by learned counsel for petitioner in case of Pankaj Raj (supra) is already set aside and same cannot be relied to buttress the arguments in this case. 15. Admittedly, the petitioner has not raised any objection after publication of model answer key. The counsel for petitioner has impressed upon the court that the cause of action to the petitioner accrued only after publication of final answer key, therefore, the petitioner has filed writ petition only after publication of final answer key. The model answer key to paper-I indicate that the final answer key remain same in respect of question numbers 3, 30 and 95. It was also same for question no. 84 of paper-II. 16. The controversy in the instant case is relating to five questions of paper no.I and one question of paper no. II and for ready reference, we are reproducing controversy in tabulation: (A) Paper-I Question No. (Model paper) Model Answer Key Final Answer Key (Published by RPSC) Petitioner's answer (writ petition) 3 Deleted Deleted 2 26 4 Deleted 4 [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (11 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] 30 4 4 Deletion requested 90 3 Deleted 3 95 Deleted Deleted 1 (B) Paper-II Question No. (Model Paper) Model Answer Key Final Answer Key (Published by RPSC) Petitioner's objection 84 1 1 Delete requested, (out of the syllabus) 17. Now, we are dealing with the individual questions, as per arguments of the counsels and material on record:- (i) Question No. 3 of paper no.1: 3. Nagnachi Mata Mandir is situated in- (1) Jaipur (2) Barmer (3) Jalore (4) Jodhpur This question was deleted by RPSC on the ground that the temple is situated in Jodhpur fort, and there is a village in Barmer district, therefore two answers are correct. Due to ambiguity, the experts have recommended that the question be deleted. Ultimately, the RPSC has deleted the question. The counsel for petitioner has referred the Hindi book published by Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, (Ministry of Education, Government of India, and written by Hukamchand [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (12 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] Jain and Dr. Narayan Lal Mali and titled as "Rajasthan Ka Itihas, Sanskriti, Parampara and Virasat"), wherein it was mentioned that Nagnachi was established at Nagana village. Admittedly, Nagana village is in Barmer district. This is only main temple, which was established in 1291 AD. The experts have relied upon internet content titled as Mission Kuldevi (Indian castes and their Gods) and on the basis of this source, have mentioned that Nagnachi temple is also situated in Jodhpur fort. Admittedly main temple situated in Barmer District hence, there is no substance in the recommendation of the expert. The opinion of expert is not only against the history of Rajasthan, but contrary to the material published and recognized by the government. The correct answer to this question was option (2) and same was available for students. The RPSC has acted on advice of experts, who have no knowledge about history of Rajasthan, therefore, the deletion of question no.3 was illegal and illogical. (ii) Question No. 26 of paper no. 1: 26. Which of the following statements is not correct? (1) 18th National Jamboree is being organized at Rohat in Pali District of Rajasthan. (2) The theme of 18th National Jamboree is "Progress with peace." (3) Rajasthan has got an opportunity to host National Jamboree, after 67 years. (4) In 1956, National Jamboree was hosted by Rajasthan at Ajmer. [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (13 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] This question was deleted in final answer sheet, but in model answer key, the correct option was (4). The petitioner has placed reliance upon Jamboree history published on website of Rajasthan Scouts and Guide with history details (Annexure-21). The option no. (4) is incorrect as in 1956 National Jamboree was hosted by Rajasthan at Jaipur. The RPSC has acted on advice of experts that the question is ambiguous and kept interpreted in different manner. As per expert, option no. 3 and 4 may be correct answers. Option no. 3 indicate that Rajasthan has got an opportunity to host National Jamboree after 67 years, whereas in the government of Rajasthan magazine, it was published that after 66 years, Rajasthan got an opportunity to host Jamboree from 4th to 10th January, 2023 at Rohat, Pali. The website of the Scouts and Guides suggests that after 67 years, whereas government of Rajasthan in official publication has mentioned 66 years. Considering the ambiguity in calculation of Number of years, the question is rightly deleted by RPSC, thus objection is not acceptable. (iii) Question no. 30 of paper no. 1: 30. Approximately what percent of the world's population lives in the Northern hemisphere? (1) 60% (2) 70% (3) 80% (4) 90% The experts of RPSC on the basis of article of "Ana Swansen" dated 07.03.2016 published in the "Washington Post" and article [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (14 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] in Hindustan Times published on 04.10.2022 has decided that 90% of the world population lives in northern hemisphere. Hence, option no. (4) is correct. The RPSC has acted upon advice of experts, without verification. Learned counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon class 12th Geography book published by Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan, Ajmer (RBSE) has referred page no. 20 from chapter IV of unit (A), wherein it was mentioned that 85% of population of the world resides in northern hemisphere while 15% population resides in southern hemisphere. The book referred by the counsel is used as an authenticate study material in schools of Rajasthan. Aforementioned opinion of expert clearly indicate that experts have relied upon newspaper articles and that too published online. Thus, the competency of said expert is doubtful. We certainly presume that these experts have no knowledge how to select a reference and base their opinion on basis of such reference. The book relied by the petitioner clearly indicate that this question was required deletion as correct option of 85% was not available to make attempt for the candidates. (iv) Question no. 90 of paper no. 1: 90. Of which Culture Ahar is the main centre? (1) Copper Urn (2) Silver Urn (3) Red & Black Urn [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (15 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] (4) Black Urn RPSC has deleted the question though while publishing model answer sheet it is mentioned that option no. 3 is correct. The experts and RPSC have placed reliance upon "Rajasthan Ka Itihas" written by Dr. Kalu Ram Sharma and Dr. Prakash Vyas, published by Panchsheel Prakashan, Jaipur, and on the basis of same has opined that framing of question is unclear and faulty, so it should be deleted. The book referred by the experts clearly demonstrate that culture of Aher is main center of red and black urn. This recommendation was contrary to the material published in the book and referred by the experts. The petitioner has placed reliance upon book published by Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy about history, culture, customs of Rajasthan (referred in para (i) while considering question no.3), wherein it was clearly mentioned that Ahar culture is main center of red and black urn. Thus, the correct answer is option no.(3) and same was available to attempt. There is no ambiguity in understanding and reply to the question. The RPSC has unnecessarily deleted the question and thereby committed a serious error. (v) Question no.95 of Paper No.1: 95. In which of the writings of Amir Khusro the invasion of Chittor by Alauddin Khilji is described? (1) Tarikh-I-Alai (2) Khazain-ul-Futuh [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (16 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] (3) Ijaz-I-Khusrawi (4) Qiran-Us-Saadain The expert have placed reliance on book published by Rajasthan Hindi Granth Akademi (mentioned while dealing question no.3), wherein it was mentioned that Amir Khusro, who was accompanying Alauddin Khilji at the time of attack on Chittor, had described invasion in Tarikh-I-Alai (Khazain-ul- Futuh), meaning thereby two options, option No. (1) and (2) were correct, therefore, the question has two answers. Learned counsel for petitioner has also placed reliance upon same book wherein also it was mentioned that the invasion was described in Tarikh-I-Alai, (Khazain-ul-Futuh). This question No. 95 was rightly deleted by RPSC. Thus objection raised by learned counsel for petitioner have no force. Considering all five questions in paper-I, it is apparent that question No. 3 and 90 were unnecessarily deleted as the advice of the experts is neither based on government publication nor upon authenticated reference books. The reference books and material selected by the experts are not prescribed as study material or textbooks either by NCERT or CBSE or by RBSE, therefore, the question No. 3 and 90 were wrongly deleted by the RPSC. The answer to these questions Nos. 3 and 90, attempted by the petitioner are correct and their is no justification to discard the answers mentioned in the writ petition. The RPSC has rightly deleted question No. 26 and 95 and the claim of petitioner is not substantiated from the material [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (17 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner, therefore, the objection about question No. 26 and 95 are not acceptable. The opinion of experts on question No. 30 is not based upon any authentic material published by government or any of the educational board of the country. The Geography book, published under the Authority of RBSE clearly indicated the correct option is not available for selection. Thus, the question number 30, required for deletion and same was wrongly answered and examined by the RPSC. The argument of the counsel for the petitioner is correct that 85% of the population lives in northern hemisphere and correct option of 85% is not available for selection. Thus, the question requires deletion and same has not been adopted by the RPSC. 18. Now, comes question no. 84 of paper no. 2 i.e. Sanskrit. The objection of the counsel for the petitioner is that the question was out of syllabus. The petitioner has not raised any objection after the paper and publication of model answer key. Annexure- R/6 indicate that few unsatisfied candidates have raised objection to answer key published by RPSC. Out of 35 objections, 34 have raised an objection that question is out of syllabus and same was considered by the experts. The experts have referred the reference and justified that it is part of course prescribed in the university. It was suggested that the relevant book is prescribed for study at graduation level. 19. Considering aforesaid, it cannot be said that the question [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (18 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] no. 84 of paper no. 2 is out of syllabus. Thus, the objection on question no. 84 is not tenable and there is no ground to consider the question is out of syllabus. 20. The counsel for petitioner was able to establish that the RPSC has arbitrarily deleted question nos. 3 and 90 as correct options were available and there is neither ambiguity in framing of question nor in any of the option to choose correct answer. The RPSC was required to delete question no. 30 but it has not correctly assessed the answer to question no. 30 as correct option was not available in all four options and the matter relied by expert is not an authenticated material. The deletion of question no. 26 and 95 is correct and learned counsel for petitioner has failed to establish that the deletion was wrong. Grievance of the petitioner with regard to question nos. 3, 30 and 90 is established from the material placed on record and also the discussion made hereinavbove Issue of Intervention and Relief. 21. Now comes the question whether the petitioner is entitled to seek relief. In process of evaluation, counsel for petitioner has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Pankaj Raj and Ors., (supra) decided on 23.04.2019 by a coordinate bench of this Court. Aggrieved RPSC/State of Rajasthan has filed D.B. special appeal no. 697/2019 which was allowed on 29.05.2019, wherein it was observed after setting aside the judgment dated 23.04.2019 it was observed as under: [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (19 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] "14.In this court’s opinion, an error crept into the approach and therefore, the conclusions in the impugned order. Even if- arguendo, it were assumed that the review (or revaluation for which there is no provision in RPSC) was correctly permitted, nevertheless, for the court to conclude that the conclusions of the expert body were palpably incorrect, the standard which the Supreme Court indicated in Ran Vijay (supra) was that “the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed”. The Supreme Court also clarified that “(T)he Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise inthe matter and academic matters are best left to academics”.After the conclusion of the judgment in Jitendra Kumar Bagaria (supra), the issues, including the correct answer keys to the two concerned questions, were again referred to the expert committee, which comprised of two individuals. These individuals did not blindly reiterate their previous opinions; they considered the materials given and relied on by the candidate-petitioners. Nevertheless, their conclusions have been faulted. 15.A court carrying on the exercise of judicial review merely scrutinizes the process in question- administrative or statutory, but necessarily public in its outcome, to see if it was arrived at in a procedurally fair and regular manner, free from illegality, not motivated by malice or mala fides or not so manifestly unreasonable in its conclusion that no reasonable individual placed in that situation would arrive at such a conclusion or so decide the matter. The impugned judgment in this Court’s opinion is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the court has unwittingly donned the robe of the decision maker: to wit, that of an expert, in art, in concluding that one of the choices was defective (question No. 11) and that the [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (20 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] RPSC’s explanation about a misprint was irrelevant, because the answer was wrongly given. These conclusions the court cannot arrive at, as they amount to primary decision making- a task which cannot be undertaken under Article 226. The impugned judgment also overlooked the salutary rule that in the event of doubt, “the benefit ought to go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate” (Ran Vijay, supra). 16. For the foregoing reasons this court is of opinion that the appeals have to succeed. They are accordingly allowed but without order on costs." 22. The judgment dated 29.05.2019 in DB S.A.W. no. 697/2019 was challenged by the candidates before Hon’ble Supreme Court and while dismissing SLP (civil) no. 13622- 13624/2019 on 10.06.2019, Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "We agree with the Division Bench of the High Court that the questions/answers in issue are not palpably incorrect as to warrant intervention of the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. As observed by the Division Bench, there are standard books/documents which support the spellings as contained in questions 11 and 22. We find no ground to interfere with the well-reasoned order of the Division Bench of the High Court. The special leave petitions are accordingly dismissed." 23. In view of aforesaid, the judgment relied by learned counsel for petitioner in case of Pankaj Raj and Ors. (supra), is no more a good law as the judgment has already been set aside. Even placing reliance upon such judgment is not an appreciable act. [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (21 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] 24. Learned counsel for respondent has placed reliance upon judgment in case of Pawan Kumar and Ors., (supra), wherein a co-ordinate bench in this case of Pawan Kumar Vs. State of Rajasthan (supra) has observed as under: "I am of the considered view as held by the Delhi High Court in the case of Sachin Vs. Deputy Secretary - (2016 SSC Online Del 2984) and earlier held by this Court in the case of Man Singh Hada versus State of Rajasthan (2015 SCC OnLine Raj 9886), that when objections to the model answer key at at public examination are not filed before the examining body within the notified time frame for the purpose, the petition at the instance of such candidate is not maintainable." 25. In case of Ranvijay Singh and Ors. Vs. State of UP & Ors., (supra), (aforementioned principle has been followed till date). The Supreme Court, has outlined, the boundaries of judicial intervention in re-evaluation of answer sheets. It was clearly held that the court normally refrains from interference once the evaluation process is undertaken by the public examination body on basis of advice of experts. 26. Considering the judgments in case of Ran Vijay Singh vs State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. (supra), UPPSC vs Rahul Singh (supra), HPPSC Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. (supra), Basavaiha (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and Ors (supra), it can be said that the Courts cannot assume the role of super examiner or subject expert when the matter requires [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (22 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] examination by specialized knowledge or expert advice. In case of Jharkhand Public Service Commission Vs. State of Jharkhand (Civil Appeal No. ------ of 2026 (Diary No.50269/2025) decided on 09.02.2026), a Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that such exercise should ordinary be left to the domain or subject experts, thus, limiting the scope of judicial review in technical and specialized matters. 27. We agree with the proposition that the power of judicial review is a basic feature of the Constitution of India and it enables the constitutional Court to examine the legality, procedural fairness and reasonableness of administrative actions. However, the principle is subject to certain limitation particularly when it involvement of expertise of subject or the domain expert and require technical expertise, wherein the doctrine of restraint is applicable. In such circumstances and as a writ court, the court has to be circumvent while exercising power to review the administrative decision when the public examination is under challenge before the Court. 28. It is expected from the RPSC to ensure that the subject experts are persons having good academic record with excellent academic expertise. Moreover, the reference relied upon by them is non-controversial, particularly looking to the age of artificial intelligence where fake and false information is readily available on all the sources of internet. We strongly deprecate the practice of the experts relying upon newspaper articles like "Washington [2026:RJ-JP:13458] (23 of 23) [CW-9572/2024] Post" or "Hindustan Times" in arriving at a conclusion of a question. We also deprecate the practice of the expert to answer and reject the objections in one line and that too without assigning a convincing reason. The reference book must be a celebrated book and should be used across the universities and the colleges of the country without any objection. 29. Having considered the entire material on record, though petitioner has able to establish that three questions of paper no.1 were wrongly assessed by the RPSC and the expert advice is not based upon a concrete material, but despite all the petitioner is not entitled for any relief on any of the ground as the exercise would involve a large-scale repercussion on all candidates. Moreover, the petitioner has not filed any objection after publication of model answer key, therefore, she has no right to challenge the questions which she has attempted and few of them were changed after publication of model answer key. 30. In view of discussion made herein above, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner is hereby dismissed with pending applications, if any. (ASHOK KUMAR JAIN),J CHETNA BEHRANI /97