[2026:RJ-JP:11652-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 190/2026 1. Divya Singh D/o Pashupati Nath Singh, Aged About 28 Years, R/o Gadarpura Road, Opposite Budhi Mata, Dholpur, Rajasthan - 328001 2. Mahesh Kumar Meena S/o Rampal Meena, Aged About 42 Years, R/o Ward No. 1, Meeno Ka Mohalla, Vpo - Rajnota, Tehsil - Paota, District - Kotputli Behror, Rajasthan - 303110 3. Harshita Nagarwal D/o Shivratan Verma Nirmal, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Quarter No. 18, Police Line, Tonk, Rajasthan - 304001 4. Pooja Suwalka D/o Vishnu Suwalka, Aged About 30 Years, R/o Ricco Area Raila, Tahsil - Banera, District - Shahpura, Rajasthan - 311024 5. Neetu Kumari Goyal D/o Rajender Kumar Jain, Aged About 42 Years, R/o A-702, Aashirwad Anandam Complex, Near Agni Shaman Kendra, R.k. Puram Kota, Rajasthan-324005 ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005. 2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution, Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No. 7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan - 302005 3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Googhara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan - 305001 4. Pooja Bagaria D/o Madan Lal Bagaria, Aged About 26 Years, R/o D-134, Suncity Projects, Sikar Raod, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302013 5. Madina Banu D/o Liyakat Ali Khan, Aged About 49 Years, R/o 96, Aashan Ke Pas, Phulia Khan, District-Shahpura, Rajasthan-311407 ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:11652-DB] (2 of 8) [SAW-190/2026] D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 218/2026 Ritika Verma D/o Ramkumar Verma, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Room No. 86 Kasturba Girls Hostel, University Of Rajasthan, Jaipur-302004. ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. 2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution, Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No. 7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001 4. Laxmi Pankaj D/o Ratan Lal Dhanetia, Aged About 31 Years, R/o Plot No. 56, Shankar Nagar, Behind Pinkcity Hospital, Murlipura Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302039. ----Respondents D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 234/2026 Pragati Mishra D/o Rajesh Kumar Mishra, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 128/268, H Block, Kidwai Nagar, Kanpur, Uttar Pradesh- 208011 ----Appellant Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C- Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005. 2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution, Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No. 7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan- 302005 3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarura, Rajasthan- 305001 ----Respondents [2026:RJ-JP:11652-DB] (3 of 8) [SAW-190/2026] D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 242/2026 1. Vivek Dhaka S/o Sultan Singh Dhaka, Aged About 33 Years, R/o House No. 117, Village Basani, Post Bairas, Tehsil Laxmangarh, District Sikar Rajasthan- 332311 2. Pallavi D/o Harmesh Chand, Aged About 27 Years, R/o 31, Golden City, Patran Road, Ward No. 4, Dirba, Sangrur, Punjab-148035. ----Appellants Versus 1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Additional Chief Secretary, Home Department, Govt. Secretariat, C-Scheme, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005. 2. Director Prosecution, Directorate Of Prosecution, Prosecution Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan, Room No. 7116-17, Food Building, Govt. Secretariat, Jaipur, Rajasthan-302005 3. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Jaipur Road, Ghooghara Ghati, Madarpura, Rajasthan-305001 4. Vandana Nehra D/o Jalesingh, Aged About 24 Years, R/o Village- Jatwas, Post-Hasampur, Tehsil- Neem Ka Thana, Sikar, Rajasthan-332718 5. Nidhi Bansal D/o Rajinder Kumar, Aged About 34 Years, R/o House No. 107, Sector 3, Hanumangarh Town, Hanumangarh, Rajasthan-335513 6. Hardika Upadhyay D/o Anil Upadhyay, Aged About 25 Years, R/o F18, Azad Nagar, Near Maha Pragya Circle, Bhilwara, Rajasthan-311001 7. Yashoda Prajapat D/o Dhan Raj, Aged About 25 Years, R/o Ward No. 37, Bhojalali Road, Sujangarh, Churu, Rajasthan-331507. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Tanveer Ahmed Mr. Bhawani Saini For Respondent(s) : Mr. Vishnu Dutt Sharma and Samee Khan, AAAG Mr. Bhuwnesh Sharma, AAG [2026:RJ-JP:11652-DB] (4 of 8) [SAW-190/2026] HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR. SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Judgment 18/03/2026 1. Since present appeals arise out of a common judgment passed by learned Single Judge dated 27.01.2026, the same are being decided by a common judgment. 2. The present appeals have been filed being aggrieved against the common judgment dated 27.01.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in the lead case of Sristi Singhal & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.19981/2025). 3. The writ petitions were filed by the petitioners assailing the result dated 10.12.2025 declared by the RPSC held for recruitment of 181 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer (hereinafter referred to as 'the APO'). 4. The main bone of contention before the learned Single Judge was that since in the result only four candidates have qualified the main examination, such abnormally low success rate demonstrates serious infirmities in the paper setting and evaluation and, therefore, the result being ex-facie arbitrary and irrational, deserves to be set aside. 5. It was contented that the methodology adopted by the RPSC was neither fair nor transparent and was carried out in a concealed manner, which resulted into an unprecedented outcome of the Main Examinations. 6. On these grounds, it was prayed that re-evaluation of the answer-sheets be undertaken. Further moderation or grace [2026:RJ-JP:11652-DB] (5 of 8) [SAW-190/2026] marks be awarded looking to the fact that only four persons have qualified and have attained the minimum cut-off marks. 7. The learned Single Judge after considering the facts of the case as well as the arguments raised by learned counsel for the petitioners, dismissed the writ petitions holding the petitions to be devoid of merits. 8. Being aggrieved against the same, the present appeals have been preferred. 9. The main thrust of the argument of learned counsel for the appellants is that the learned Single Judge could not have called for the record and evaluated the answer-sheets by himself and the same can only be done by the Committee of Experts. 10. Learned counsel has also stated that in the present case, the matter should have been referred to the Expert Committee for re-evaluation of the answer-sheets and only thereafter the matter could have been resolved looking to the strict marking, the method of moderation or scaling should have been adopted. 11. Learned counsel has placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in 2020 INSC 681 and Pranav Verma & Others Vs. The Registrar General & Anr (Writ Petition (Civil) No.565/2019.) 12. Reliance has also been placed upon the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Nisha Gaur & Ors. Vs. The Registrar (D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.18479/2022, decided on 14.02.2024) in support of the contentions raised above. [2026:RJ-JP:11652-DB] (6 of 8) [SAW-190/2026] 13. We have heard learned counsel for the appellants as well as gone through the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. 14. The learned Single Judge has considered all the contentions raised by the petitioners at length and has passed a reasoned and speaking order. The contentions of the petitioners/appellants have been duly dealt with. 15. The main contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the learned Single Judge could not have evaluated the answer-sheets by calling of the record and this can only be undertaken by the Committee of Experts, is on the face of it misconceived. 16. Upon going through the order of the learned Single Judge it is seen that although the record was examined, but the same was only to the extent of examining the process of evaluation and to check the fairness in process, as the petitioners had raised the ground that the process adopted for evaluation was unfair and was not transparent. We are satisfied that the learned Single Judge has not evaluated the answer-sheets as stated by the petitioners. 17. The learned Single Judge has examined the record as to determine whether the answer-sheets were evaluated in a uniform and fair manner. To rule out the allegations of variation in evaluation standards, it was also checked that whether the evaluation was done by the same set of Examiners or not. The single judge has clearly held that the Examiners had followed the structured instructions for award of marks, and the evaluation process was supported by internal checks and cross-verification [2026:RJ-JP:11652-DB] (7 of 8) [SAW-190/2026] mechanism. After considering the same, it was found that the methodology adopted was rational, uniform, fair and transparent and does not indicate any arbitrariness or unfairness in the process. 18. Only because there is low percentage of qualifying candidates, it cannot be a universal ground for interference in academic/examination matters. The examination process has been found to be fair and free from arbitrariness and the appellants/petitioners have failed to show any malafides on the part of the Examining Body in holding the examination and evaluation of the answer-sheets. In such circumstance, the judgment relied upon by the appellants in Nisha Gaur (supra) also cannot be held to be applicable as the same was passed in special set of facts of that case and the issues raised were different. 19. The judgment relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant of Hon'ble Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the present case, as therein the question involved was regarding re-evaluation of the answer- sheet and the answers to the questions were under challenge. Herein, no such contentions were raised in the petition. Further, so far as the issue of moderation and scaling is concerned, when it is found that evaluation was conducted uniformly following a rational and transparent methodology, nor there were multiple subjects, there is no question of adopting any such method. 20. The ground raised regarding relaxation of minimum percentage of marks and grant of bonus marks also has no force, [2026:RJ-JP:11652-DB] (8 of 8) [SAW-190/2026] as once the petitioners have failed to secure the minimum qualifying standards, which they were required to get as per the scheme of examination, no such benefits can be given contrary to the scheme of examination. 21. The reliance placed upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in Pranav Verma (supra) would be of no help to the appellants as the Hon'ble Apex Court has passed the order while exercising powers under Article 142 of the Constitution of India in the special set of circumstances. 22. We find that all the contentions raised by learned counsel the appellants have been duly considered by the learned Single Judge, and have no force in view of the observations made above. 23. In such circumstances, we find no reason to interfere in the order passed by the learned Single Judge and we concur with the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge. 24. In view of above, there being no case to interfere, the present appeals are dismissed. 25. Stay applications and all pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of accordingly. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA),ACTING CJ 8 to11 Sanjay Singh