Rajasthan High Court rejects plea challenging answer key of 2024 civil judge exam

The Rajasthan High Court recently dismissed a plea challenging the results and answer key of the preliminary examination held in 2024 for recruitment of civil judges [Khushbu Choudhary v Rajasthan High Court]

A Division Bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal said it cannot take a different view than the expert committee, which considered the objections regarding the questions and answers.

“In matters relating to academic evaluation or determination of correct answers in a competitive examination, the Court does not sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the Expert Committee. Even assuming that the interpretation suggested by the petitioner is plausible, the existence of an alternative view cannot by itself justify interference. Where two reasonable views are possible in an academic matter, the view adopted by the Expert Committee must ordinarily prevail,” the Court said.

The petitioner, 32-year-old Khushbu Choudhary, had given the exam but failed to qualify since she did not secure the cut-off marks.

She moved the Court against two answers and also challenged the deletion of two other questions.

The Court, however, refused to accept her argument that she was placed at a disadvantage due to the deletions.

“Since the said questions have been deleted uniformly for all candidates, we find that the approach adopted by the Expert Committee cannot be termed either arbitrary or discriminatory. All candidates have been treated alike, including the petitioner. Accepting the petitioner’s contention merely on the ground that she claims to have been disadvantaged would, in effect, result in reverse discrimination by creating a separate category for those candidates who assert that they had chosen the correct answers,” the Bench said.

Further, the Court did not accept the answer given by her to a question related to rule against double jeopardy. However, the Court also noted that an additional mark would not help her as the cut-off for the preliminary exam was 68.

“Even assuming that the answer to Question No. 51 were to be accepted as the one opted by the petitioner, she would at best be entitled to one additional mark, thereby increasing her score from 65 to 66 marks,” the Bench said.

With regard to another answer under challenge, the Court said the petitioner demonstrated a clear understanding of the underlying legal principle in the question but the divergence in terminology led to the selection of an answer by her that was incorrect.

“Be that as it may, it is well-settled that where an Expert Committee constituted to examine objections to the model answer key has considered the objections and finalized the answer key, the Court should not ordinarily interfere with such determination unless it is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or perverse,” the Bench added.

Thus, the Court dismissed the plea. However, it went on to appreciate the petitioner for the manner in which she pursued her case and assisted the Bench while arguing the matter in person.

“Despite the fact that the entire selection process has, in the meantime, attained finality, with the interviews having been conducted and the successful candidates having already been issued appointment letters and presently serving as Judicial Officers, the petitioner did not give up her pursuit and has through the instant lis, displayed notable diligence, clarity of thought, and perseverance in advancing her submissions. Such dedication and commitment are indeed praiseworthy. While the petitioner has not succeeded in the present proceedings, we extend our best wishes to her in her future endeavours and trust that she will continue to pursue her aspirations in the field of law with the same sincerity and determination,” the Bench said.

Advocates Vaishnav Nikita and Chayan Bothra represented the High Court.

[Read Judgment]