Rajasthan HC Rejects Pleas Challenging Answer Key For Dental Medical Officers' Exam Due To Lack Of Palpable And Demonstrable Error

The Jaipur bench of the Rajasthan High Court rejected a bunch of writ petitions challenging the final answer key issued by the Rajasthan University of Health Science for Dental Medical Officer's exam ruling that the only situation in which disputed answer key can be interfered with if it appears to be “palpably and demonstrably erroneous”.

In doing so the court found that the RUHS duly noted the objections raised by the concerned candidates against the model answer key, which was also analyzed by experts after which necessary changes were made, adding that no procedural lapses had occurred.

Referring to various Supreme Court decisions on the issue Justice Sameer Jain said:

"Therefore, it is abundantly made clear that a disputed question-answer shall only be treated as palpably and demonstrably wrong, if it is shown that in order to catch hold of the said error and/or notice the fallaciousness crept therein, one ought not to apply a process of reasoning. Rather, the error should be so apparent, that the same may discernible by a mere glimpse, as opposed to a thoughtful analysis. Similarly, even when two equally valiant interpretations of an answer are possible, it cannot be said that the answer is demonstrably erroneous". 

The writ petitions were filed against RUHS contending that the answer keys issued was prima facie erroneous and objectively incorrect requiring judicial review for protecting the fundamental rights of the petitioners. It was argued on behalf of the petitioners that in the matters of public employment, no scope of fallacy was acceptable and due diligence had to be exercised by the body conducting the exam.

On the contrary, it was submitted on behalf of RUHS that the scope of judicial review was limited in matters of administrative decision-making. It was argued that the Court could not itself ascertain the correctness of disputed answers since it lacked the expertise.

It was further submitted that a committee of experts was constituted to address the grievances and rendering justification for every answer. Furthermore, reliance was placed on the Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023, in which it was provided that expert opinion had to be placed on a higher pedestal in deciding the objections.

After hearing the contention, the Court highlighted that in many judgments, the Supreme Court had pronounced that in relation to academic matters, the Courts had to exercise reluctance in opining what was correct or not. Hence, the scope of judicial review was miniscule in such matters and that too was sparingly permissible only after obtaining expert opinions since the Court could not ascertain correctness of answer key purely on their own volition.

The Court made a reference to the case of Sindhu B.S. v Union of India & Ors. in which it was held that the writ jurisdiction of the Courts could not be used to check the correctness of answer key as it was a purely academic matter.

It was further held that the only exception to this position was when the disputed answers were palpably and demonstrably erroneous. The Court referred to the case of Kanpur University and Ors. vs. Samir Gupta and Ors. in which it was held,

“the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.”

Following this analysis, the Court made an assessment of the disputed answer key to see whether the same could be considered palpably and demonstrably erroneous/ incorrect as per the rule laid down in the precedents. The Court also interacted with the expert committee as well as some of the petitioners, and post this analysis, it held that,

“this Court after analyzing the questions illustratively noted above, cannot help but highlight the need to adopt an inferential process of reasoning, including the comparative analysis and juxtaposition of various reports and study material, to arrive at an objective decision…respondent-RUHS, pursuant to the receiving of the objections against the model answer key, has exercised its discretion, consulted with the experts and thereafter, effectuated necessary changes, as is illustratively reflected by the questions noted above. Therefore, no rare and exceptional case arises, whereby this Court without adopting an inferential process of reasoning or rather, a process of rationalization, permits scrutiny of the final answer key dated 06.08.2024.”

"However, in the foregoing facts and circumstances of the matter in hand it can be inferred that the objections raised by the petitioners/candidates against the model answer key were duly taken note of the by the respondent-RUHS and thereafter, in examining those objections, the Expert Committee duly analyzed the merits and correctness of the objections and thereafter, effectuated necessary changes in the final answer key dated 06.08.2024, wherever required, as is noted above. Therefore, no procedural lapse occurred in carrying out the said exercise," the court added. 

It was ruled that in academic matters the experts had the last word since the courts did not have requisite expertise or infrastructure to decide the correctness of such decisions. It was further observed that unending litigation for public employments on which career of so many young individuals depended could not be permitted to be in abeyance for so long.

Hence, it was opined that the Court was not inclined to interfere in the matter and accordingly the writ petitions were dismissed.

Case Title: Dr. Pankaj Yadav v Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan) & Ors. and other connected petitions

Citation: 2024 LiveLaw (Raj) 392

Click Here To Read/Download Order