Faulty answer keys can’t deny appointment to meritorious candidates: Raj HC directs teacher appointments

Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has directed the State to consider eight Teacher Grade-III candidates for appointment after their marks, revised following the correction of erroneous questions in the official answer key, placed them above the merit cut-off for their categories despite lower-scoring candidates already being in service.

Dr. Justice Nupur Bhati was hearing a writ petition filed by Sunil Pandit and seven others, who contended that despite securing higher marks than several candidates already recommended and posted as Teacher Grade-III, they were being denied appointment even though an Expert Committee constituted pursuant to an earlier order of this Court had revised their scores upward.

The Court reiterated its observations in Yasmeen Bee & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors., noting:

“it is a matter of common knowledge that unemployment has assumed alarming proportions in the present era and the level of competition in public recruitments has become extraordinarily intense. In such competitive examinations, particularly those based upon objective type multiple-choice questions, every single question assumes great significance, as marks attached even to one question are capable of altering the fate of hundreds of aspiring candidates.”

The petitioners had participated in the Teacher Grade-III selection process in which widespread irregularities and incorrect answers were detected in the official answer keys, prompting a batch of candidates to approach the High Court earlier. Pursuant to directions issued in that petition, the respondents constituted an Expert Committee to examine the discrepancies, which submitted its report leading to an upward or downward revision of marks. The petitioners’ marks were revised upward, placing them above the merit threshold of their respective categories, yet the respondents failed to implement the Expert Committee’s findings and continued to withhold their appointments.

Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla, submitted that the issue was squarely covered by the judgment in Yasmeen Bee & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 13045/2025 and connected matters), decided on May 11, 2026 by a Coordinate Bench at the Jaipur Bench, which had allowed similarly placed petitions with specific directions. Learned counsel for the respondents were unable to refute that the present matter was covered by the said judgment.

Applying the same directions, the Court held that the respondents shall determine the correct number of vacancies in accordance with the guidelines laid down by the Division Bench of this Court and by the Supreme Court in Namonarayan Sharma & Others, and shall re-examine the petitioners’ claims afresh. Where a petitioner is otherwise eligible and has secured higher marks on the revised results than the last appointed candidate in the respective category, the respondents shall offer appointment, subject to availability of vacancies, within two months from receipt of a certified copy of the order. The petitioners were held entitled to notional benefits of pay fixation and seniority over candidates appointed earlier despite securing lower marks, though without any claim to monetary arrears for the past period, and it was clarified that no candidate already appointed under the original answer key would be terminated on account of the revision.

The benefit of the ruling was confined to the petitioners before the Court and to those candidates who had already approached the High Court and whose petitions remained pending, with the Court clarifying that any fence-sitter who failed to agitate his rights within reasonable time would not be entitled to claim the benefit.

The Court further directed the Chief Secretary, Government of Rajasthan, to constitute a High-Level Committee of senior IAS officers under the chairmanship of the Secretary, Department of Personnel, to examine the recurring problem of faulty question papers and answer keys, formulate a Standard Operating Procedure and other corrective measures, and consider disciplinary action against officials or experts responsible for such errors, with a compliance report to be filed within three months.

In view of the respondents’ inability to distinguish the present case, the writ petition was allowed in the same terms and directions as Yasmeen Bee.

Title: Sunil Pandit & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

Case No.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 20327/2025

Citation: 2026:RJ-JP:29668

Counsel for petitioner: Mr. Vikram Singh Bhawla

Counsel for respondent: Mr. Samarjeet Singh Bhati for Mr. Kamlesh Sharma, AGC (for Respondents 1 & 2); Ms. Nandipana Gehlot for Mr. Manish Patel (for Respondent 3)