Rajasthan Judicial Service: High Court Dismisses Review Petition Challenging Answer Key Of 2021 Preliminary Exam As 'Misconceived'

The review petition was filed against the order dated 08.04.2022, whereby the division bench had dismissed a batch of writ petitions questioning the correctness and validity of the merit list prepared after Preliminary Examination in the matter .

Acting Chief Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Justice Sameer Jain, while dismissing the review petition as it being 'misconceived', observed,

"The argument of learned counsel for the review petitioner is utterly misconceived in law. This Court on the factual premise that upon objection received on the correctness of the model answer key of question no.A-66/B-49/C-58/D-39, the expert body had considered objection and it opined that the question was with regard to the date on which the Act was published and therefore with reference to the question, the date of publication was relevant not the date on which it was brought into force and effect in exercise of powers under Section 1(1) of the Act."

The court opined that the decision of the expert body does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The court noted that the judgments which have been relied upon by the counsel for the review petitioner are with regard to the scope of interference by the constitutional courts in the matter of correctness of model answers.

Further, the court observed that the procedure adopted by the respondents to invite objections against proposed answer keys, getting it examined by a body of experts and acting according to the opinion of experts, in accordance with law and thereby requires no interference.

The counsel for the review petitioner submitted that insofar as decision of the respondent examination agency and expert body to alter the model answer of question no.A-66/B49/C-58/D-39, the same was palpably wrong because the Indecent Representation of Women (Prohibition) Act, 1986 was published on 25.09.1987.

He also submitted that model answer once framed could not be altered. It is further submitted that the petitioner having answered the earlier model answer ought to have been benefited with the marks as the very alteration of model answers was incorrect.

Rajasthan High Court Dismisses Challenge To Civil Judge Exam Preliminary Merit List

Adv. Vinod Lal Mathur appeared on behalf of the petitioner.

Case Title: Sudarshan Purohit v. The Hon'ble High Court For Judicature Of Rajasthan & Anr.

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Raj) 154

Click Here To Read/Download Order