Raj HC refuses to interfere with Civil Judge preliminary exam result, upholds expert committee’s answer key

Jaipur/Jodhpur: The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition challenging the result and final answer key of the Rajasthan Judicial Services (Civil Judge Cadre) Preliminary Examination, 2024, holding that courts should not ordinarily interfere in academic matters involving evaluation of answer keys by expert bodies unless the decision is shown to be manifestly arbitrary or perverse.

The Division Bench comprising Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal held that once an expert committee has considered objections and finalized the answer key, judicial review is limited and cannot extend to re-evaluating answers merely because an alternative view is possible.

The judgment was delivered in D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12461/2024, Khushbu Choudhary vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors., decided on 12.03.2026.

The petitioner, who appeared in person, had sought quashing of the result dated 15.07.2024 and the final answer key of the preliminary examination, along with a direction to prepare a revised result after reconsidering objections raised by candidates.

As per the record, the petitioner had applied for the Civil Judge recruitment pursuant to an advertisement dated 09.04.2024 and appeared in the preliminary examination conducted on 23.06.2024.

The model answer key was published on 25.06.2024, and candidates were invited to submit objections. After considering objections, the High Court published a revised answer key and declared results on 15.07.2024, calling candidates up to fifteen times the number of vacancies for the next stage.

The petitioner, having failed to secure marks above the cut-off in her category, challenged the evaluation process, alleging that objections were not properly considered and certain answers were incorrectly modified.

The petitioner argued that she had correctly answered two questions (Question Nos. 91 and 92), which were later deleted, resulting in loss of marks.

Rejecting the contention, the Court held that the Expert Committee had deleted the questions due to ambiguity and applied the decision uniformly to all candidates.

The Bench observed that accepting the petitioner’s claim would amount to “reverse discrimination” by creating a separate class of candidates who assert correctness of their answers.

With respect to Question No. 51, relating to Section 300 CrPC (double jeopardy), the petitioner claimed that her selected answer was correct.

The Court, however, upheld the Expert Committee’s answer, clarifying that a subsequent trial for robbery is permissible only where the earlier court lacked jurisdiction, which was not the case in the question.

The Bench further noted that even if the petitioner’s answer were accepted, she would gain only one additional mark—raising her score from 65 to 66—still below the cut-off of 68 marks required to qualify.

On Question No. 11, the petitioner contended that the correct answer should have been the Latin maxim Ejusdem Generis, instead of “Rule of Homogenous Interpretation.”

The Court dismissed this argument, holding that both expressions convey the same legal principle and the difference is merely one of terminology, not substance.

While appreciating the petitioner’s understanding of the doctrine, the Court held that such linguistic variation does not render the answer key incorrect.

Emphasizing the settled legal position, the Court held that it does not sit as an appellate authority over expert committees in academic matters.

The Bench observed:

• Where two reasonable views are possible, the expert body’s view must prevail
• Courts should interfere only in cases of clear arbitrariness or perversity
• Competitive examinations require finality and certainty

The Court further noted that allowing individual grievances after completion of the selection process would unsettle recruitment and adversely affect successful candidates who were not even parties to the proceedings.

The Court also held that the petitioner, having participated in the selection process with full knowledge of the procedure—including objection mechanism—cannot challenge the outcome merely because it is unfavorable.

Before concluding, the Bench recorded appreciation for the petitioner, who argued the matter in person, noting her diligence, clarity, and perseverance.

However, finding no grounds for interference, the Court dismissed the writ petition.

Case Title:
Khushbu Choudhary vs Rajasthan High Court & Ors.

Case Number:
D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12461/2024

Citation:
[2026:RJ-JD:11756-DB]

Court:
High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur

Bench:
Justice Arun Monga, Justice Sunil Beniwal

Date of Pronouncement:
12/03/2026

Advocates:
Petitioner (in person): Ms. Khushbu Choudhary
For Respondent: Ms. Vaishnav Nikita, Mr. Chayan Bothra