‘Experts should not rely on newspaper articles’: Raj HC dismisses Senior Teacher answer key challenge

Jaipur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition by a Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) aspirant challenging the final answer key of the RPSC examination, even as the bench of Justice Ashok Kumar Jain found that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission had wrongly assessed three questions by relying on unverified internet sources and newspaper articles rather than authenticated government publications.

Poonam Garg, a resident of Deoli, Tonk, had applied for the post of Senior Teacher (Sanskrit) in response to an RPSC advertisement dated April 5, 2022. The examination comprised two papers — Paper I of 200 marks with 100 multiple-choice questions, and Paper II of 300 marks with 150 questions — both with negative marking. After the examination, RPSC published a model answer key inviting objections. Poonam Garg did not file any objection at that stage.

When the final answer key was published on February 29, 2024, the petitioner found that RPSC had deleted questions 3, 26, 90, and 95 from Paper I and had retained its earlier answer for question 30 of Paper I as well as question 84 of Paper II. She had secured 341.90 marks and contended that correct evaluation of these questions would have placed her above the cut-off. She accordingly filed the writ petition seeking directions to revise the answer key, re-evaluate her marks, and appoint her to the post with all consequential benefits.

Mr. Arihant Samdaria, appearing for the petitioner, submitted that the RPSC had arbitrarily and unnecessarily deleted questions 3, 26, 90, and 95 of Paper I, when correct answers were available and supported by government publications. On question 3, which asked about the location of the Nagnachi Mata Mandir, he placed reliance on a book published by Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy — a government body — which clearly identifies the main temple at Nagana village in Barmer district, established in 1291 AD. On question 90, which concerned the Ahar culture, he relied on the same publication, which confirms that Ahar is the main centre of red and black urn culture.

On question 30, which asked what percentage of the world’s population lives in the Northern Hemisphere, counsel produced the Class XII Geography textbook published by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan (RBSE), which states that 85% of the population resides in the Northern Hemisphere. Since 85% was not among the available options — which offered 60%, 70%, 80%, and 90% — the question had no correct answer and required deletion. He also submitted that question 26 regarding the National Jamboree had been wrongly deleted, and that question 84 of Paper II on Sanskrit was outside the prescribed syllabus.

Mr. Devansh Sharma, Deputy Government Counsel, with Mr. Shreyansh Jain, appearing for the State and RPSC, resisted the petition on two grounds. First, since the petitioner had not filed any objection to the model answer key within the notified period, the petition was not maintainable — relying on Pawan Kumar vs. State of Rajasthan (SB CWP No. 18377/2018), Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2018) 2 SCC 357], UPPSC vs. Rahul Singh [(2018) 7 SCC 254], HPPSC vs. Mukesh Thakur [(2010) 6 SCC 759], and Basavaiha (Dr.) vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh [(2010) 8 SCC 372]. Second, the decision to delete questions was taken on the recommendation of an expert committee, and courts cannot substitute their judgment for that of domain experts. They further submitted that any change to the answer key would affect all candidates equally and create large-scale repercussions.

Justice Ashok Kumar Jain examined each disputed question in detail before addressing the question of relief.

On question 3 (Nagnachi Mata Mandir), the Court found that RPSC’s experts had relied on internet content from a website titled “Mission Kuldevi” to conclude that the temple also exists in Jodhpur fort, thus creating a second correct answer. Against this, the government-published book from Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy — titled “Rajasthan Ka Itihas, Sanskriti, Parampara and Virasat” — establishes the main temple at Nagana village in Barmer district. The Court held the deletion “illegal and illogical” and concluded that the expert opinion was “not only against the history of Rajasthan, but contrary to the material published and recognised by the government.” The correct answer was option (2).

On question 26 (National Jamboree), the Court upheld the deletion. The government of Rajasthan’s official publication had stated that Rajasthan hosted the Jamboree after 66 years, while the Scouts and Guides website stated 67 years. Given this conflict between official sources, the ambiguity was genuine and the deletion was justified.

On question 30 (Northern Hemisphere population), the Court delivered a sharp rebuke to the RPSC’s expert process. The experts had declared 90% correct on the basis of a Washington Post article by Ana Swansen (dated March 7, 2016) and a Hindustan Times article (October 4, 2022). The Court held that the RBSE Class XII Geography textbook — “authenticated study material used in schools of Rajasthan” — clearly states 85%, which was not even among the options offered. “The competency of said expert is doubtful,” the Court observed. “We certainly presume that these experts have no knowledge how to select a reference and base their opinion on basis of such reference.” The question should have been deleted.

On question 90 (Ahar culture), the Court noted a particularly striking contradiction: the very book cited by RPSC’s experts — “Rajasthan Ka Itihas” by Dr. Kalu Ram Sharma and Dr. Prakash Vyas — confirmed that the culture of Ahar is the main centre of red and black urn, meaning option (3) was correct. The Court held: “This recommendation was contrary to the material published in the book and referred by the experts.” The deletion was described as “a serious error.”

On question 95 (Amir Khusro’s writings on Alauddin Khilji’s invasion of Chittor), the Court found the deletion was correct, as the same source book establishes that Tarikh-I-Alai and Khazain-ul-Futuh are the same work, making both options (1) and (2) correct answers.

On question 84 of Paper II (Sanskrit), the Court noted that 34 out of 35 objectors had raised the out-of-syllabus ground. However, the expert committee had verified that the relevant text is prescribed at graduation level, and the Court accepted this finding, rejecting the petitioner’s objection on this question.

Having found errors in three questions, the Court nonetheless issued a pointed observation about the quality of expert opinions at RPSC: “We strongly deprecate the practice of the experts relying upon newspaper articles like ‘Washington Post’ or ‘Hindustan Times’ in arriving at a conclusion of a question. We also deprecate the practice of the expert to answer and reject the objections in one line and that too without assigning a convincing reason. The reference book must be a celebrated book and should be used across the universities and the colleges of the country without any objection.”

The Court added that in the age of artificial intelligence, “fake and false information is readily available on all the sources of internet” and it is imperative for RPSC to ensure that its subject experts have a good academic record and excellent expertise, and that the references they rely upon are “non-controversial.”

Despite these findings, the Court held that the petitioner was not entitled to any relief. Justice Jain relied on the Division Bench judgment in DB S.A.W. No. 697/2019 (decided May 29, 2019, upholding RPSC’s position and set aside the earlier coordinate bench order in Pankaj Raj vs. State of Rajasthan), which was affirmed by the Supreme Court on dismissal of SLP (Civil) Nos. 13622-13624/2019 on June 10, 2019. The Division Bench had clearly held that a court conducting judicial review “cannot arrive at” conclusions about the correctness of expert opinions, as that would amount to “primary decision making — a task which cannot be undertaken under Article 226.” In cases of doubt, the benefit goes to the examination authority, not the candidate.

Relying further on Jharkhand Public Service Commission vs. State of Jharkhand (Three Judge Bench, decided February 9, 2026) and the series of Supreme Court decisions in Ran Vijay Singh, UPPSC vs. Rahul Singh, HPPSC vs. Mukesh Thakur, and Basavaiha, the Court held that courts must be “circumspect” in exercising the power to review decisions of public examination bodies. Since the petitioner had not filed any objection to the model answer key within the stipulated period, she had no right to now challenge the final answer key. Any relief would also affect all other candidates across the board.

The writ petition filed by Poonam Garg was dismissed along with all pending applications.

Case Details