Rajasthan HC Upholds Answer Key of 2024 Civil Judge Exam, Dismisses Petition

The Rajasthan High Court, in Khushbu Choudhary v Rajasthan High Court, has dismissed a petition challenging the answer key and results of the 2024 Civil Judge preliminary examination. The Court refused to interfere with the findings of the expert committee that had reviewed objections raised by candidates.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal reiterated that courts do not function as appellate authorities in matters involving academic evaluation. It emphasised that the opinion of an expert committee must be given due weight, especially in competitive examinations.

“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, Khushbu Choudhary, had appeared for the examination but failed to clear the cut-off, scoring 65 marks against the required 68. She approached the Court challenging two answers and the deletion of two questions from the paper.

However, the Court found no merit in her argument that deletion of questions caused prejudice. It held that the deletion was applied equally to all candidates and did not result in any unfair treatment.

“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 observed.

On the issue of one disputed answer, the Court noted that even if the petitioner’s response was accepted, it would only increase her score by one mark, which would still fall short of the qualifying threshold.

With regard to another question concerning the principle of double jeopardy, the Court acknowledged that the petitioner had a sound understanding of the concept. However, it observed that the variation in terminology led her to choose an incorrect option.

Reaffirming settled law, the Court stated that once an expert committee has examined objections and finalised the answer key, judicial interference is warranted only in cases of clear arbitrariness or perversity.

“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.

While dismissing the plea, the Court appreciated the petitioner’s effort in arguing the case in person. It acknowledged her diligence, clarity, and perseverance, and extended best wishes for her future in the legal profession.