Order : Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that the issue involved in this appeal has already been considered and decided by this Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Bhakar Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. (D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.636/2024 along with other connected matters) decided on 17.03.2025, wherein the following order was passed:- “1. In the present batch of appeals since common questions are involved, hence with consent of the parties, the appeals have been heard together and are being decided by the present common order. 2. These appeals have been filed by the appellants challenging the judgment dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4777/2021 (Surjan Dhawan Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. along with other connected matters) whereby the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions. 3. Being aggrieved by the order dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge, the appellants have filed these appeals. 4. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions narrated the factual aspects in para No.2 of the judgment which are as under:- “2. The ineluctable facts, necessary for discerning the issue at hand, are concisely noted herein-under: 2/1 That on 13.04.2018, the respondent- Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for brevity, RPSC or Commission) issued an advertisement for the post of School Lecturer-2018 for different subjects, whereby 5000 posts were advertised in toto. 2/2 That on 03.01.2020, the examination for G.K. (Paper- I) (Group-A) and Hindi was conducted by the respondent-RPSC. For the other subjects, the examination was conducted on several distinct dates, which are immaterial for adjudicating upon the legal issue at hand. 2/3 That on 12.03.2020, the model answer key for the subjects of G.K. (Group-A) and Hindi was issued. 2/4 That vide press note dated 12.03.2020, online objections were invited for G.K. (Group A) from 17.03.2020 to 19.03.2020. In the said note, it was made clear that all the objections must be submitted online and not through any other mode. Additionally, the press note also clarified that the respondent-RPSC shall entertain the objections on only one occasion i.e. the candidates, after being duly informed, were granted only one single opportunity to raise their objections qua the model answer key. Additionally, the press note also clarified that the respondent-RPSC shall entertain the objections on only one occasion i.e. the candidates, after being duly informed, were granted only one single opportunity to raise their objections qua the model answer key. Similarly, model answer keys were also issued for various other subjects as well, appended with an identical press note qua the mode and medium of raising objections, as mentioned herein-above. 2/5 That while raising the objections qua the model answer key online, the candidates were provided with seven distinct options, amongst which, they ought to select the one most suited to their grievance. The options provided were: (i) All options are wrong (ii) More than one options are correct (iii) Question is incorrect/vague (iv) Difference in Hindi and English version (v) Out of syllabus (vi) Question is not clear (vii) Others. 2/6 That after duly taking note of the objections raised by the candidates, the subject experts on 26.06.2020, issued the provisional merit list. Thereafter, subsequent to the verification of the documents, the final list was issued on 22.12.2020. 2/7 That on 07.01.2021, the final answer key was issued by the respondent-RPSC. It is pertinent to note that simultaneously, the process as enunciated herein-above, was also carried out for various other subjects and thereafter, the final answer key for the other subjects was also issued by the Commission on respective dates. 2/8 That on 17.02.2021, this Court passed an order in S.B. CWP No. 638/2021 titled as Kamal Yadav vs. State of Rajasthan, whereby it was observed that the objections raised by the candidates/petitioners shall be considered by a Special Expert Committee, consisting of experts from various subjects, at the level of the respondent-RPSC. 2/9 That in pursuance to the order dated 17.02.2021, the respondent-RPSC constituted the Special Expert Committee-I to examine the objections raised by the candidates which were in existence up until 17.03.2021. By the said committee consisting of subject experts, 99 questions of different subjects were examined. 2/10 That on 05.03.2021, in S.B. CWP No.1347/2021 titled as Namrata Jat vs. State of Rajasthan, this Court gave directions that no further petition shall be entertained as recruitment cannot be an unending process as a time plan had been laid down by the RPSC for disposal of the issue by the expert committee. 2/10 That on 05.03.2021, in S.B. CWP No.1347/2021 titled as Namrata Jat vs. State of Rajasthan, this Court gave directions that no further petition shall be entertained as recruitment cannot be an unending process as a time plan had been laid down by the RPSC for disposal of the issue by the expert committee. 2/11 That up until 17.03.2021, the respondent-RPSC received objections against 99 questions only, which were duly examined by the experts. 2/12 That subsequently, the present writ petitions were filed with the contention that certain questions/objections were not examined by the respondent-RPSC. Thereafter, during the pendency of the writ petitions, the respondent-RPSC found out that the orders of certain petitions, which were filed up until 05.03.2021, were not available with the respondent-RPSC and therefore, some objections could not be examined by the experts. 2/13 That vide press note dated 10.11.2021, the respondent-RPSC suo moto intimated that the Commission had arrived at a decision to constitute the expert committees for the examination of those remaining questions/objections as well, qua whom the petitions were filed up until 05.03.2021, and which were not examined earlier. 2/14 That in pursuance to the press note dated 10.11.2021, the respondent-RPSC constituted the Special Expert Committee-II for ascertaining the objections regarding the remaining questions, qua whom the petitions were filed up until 05.03.2021. In toto, objections were received against 74 questions. The expert committee found no change in the answers. 2/15 That during the pendency of the present writ petitions, this Court vide order dated 05.04.2022 directed the respondent- RPSC to re-examine the disputed questions as mentioned in the writ petitions, list of which had been enclosed along with the press note dated 10.11.2021. 2/16 That in pursuance to the direction(s) passed by this Court vide order dated 05.04.2022, the respondent-RPSC again constituted the Special Expert Committee- III. It is noted that the said committee examined 99 questions in toto and found no change in the final answer key issued by the respondent-RPSC.” 5. Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants unanimously argued that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ‘RPSC’) has failed to consider their objections in a proper manner and rejected the same without application of mind and without taking into consideration the material supplied by them. Counsels appearing on behalf of the appellants unanimously argued that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ‘RPSC’) has failed to consider their objections in a proper manner and rejected the same without application of mind and without taking into consideration the material supplied by them. Counsels further argued that the RPSC has blatantly committed a mistake by inviting Suo Motu objections of the questions from the candidates even after completion of the selection process. Counsels further argued that the RPSC has blatantly committed a serious mistake in deleting certain questions without any basis. Counsels further argued that in one examination the RPSC thought it proper to consider one answer of a question as right and in another examination considered another answer of the same question as right and this practice is arbitrary and without application of mind. Counsels further argued that the RPSC conducted the examination in which certain questions were out of syllabus. Counsels further argued that the matter was not referred to the subject Experts by the RPSC. Counsels further argued that the Experts have not given any reasons for rejecting the objections. Counsels further argued that the posts in question are still lying vacant in the Department. Counsels further argued that the Expert Committee mala-fidely rejected their objections, therefore, prayed for allowing these appeals and quashing of the judgment dated 25.08.2023 passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. In support of the contention counsels for the appellants relied upon the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Court which are as under:- Supreme Court Judgments :- (i) The State of Rajasthan & Ors. Vs. Suman & Ors. passed in Special Leave to Appeal (c) No(s).10016/2023 decided on 06.10.2023. (ii) Richal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. reported in 2018 (8) SCC 81 . (ii) Manish Ujwal & Ors. Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors.reported in 2005 (13) SCC 744 . (iv) Rishal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal Nos.4695-4699 of 2018 (Arising out of SLP (C) Nos.14306-14310/2017) decided on 03.05.2018. High Court Judgments:- (i) Suman & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.847/2022 decided on 02.02.2023. (ii) Jagdish Kumar Choudhary Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission passed in D.B. Speical Appeal Writ No.447/2020 decided on21.10.2021. (iii) Pankaj Oswal & Ors. Vs. High Court Judgments:- (i) Suman & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.847/2022 decided on 02.02.2023. (ii) Jagdish Kumar Choudhary Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission passed in D.B. Speical Appeal Writ No.447/2020 decided on21.10.2021. (iii) Pankaj Oswal & Ors. Vs. Rahul Kumar Mahrawal & Ors. passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No.1092/2015 decided on14.05.2018. 7. Counsels appearing on behalf of the respondents unanimously opposed the submissions made by counsels for the appellants and unequivocally argued that the scope of judicial review is very limited with regard to interference in the matter of questions and answers examined by the Experts Committee. Counsels further argued that the learned Single Judge has not committed any illegality in dismissing the writ petitions as the learned Single Judge has relied upon various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Counsels further argued that all the reports of the Experts Committee were produced before the learned Single Judge by way of additional affidavit and while drafting the present appeals, counsels for the appellants failed to look into the reports of the said committees. Counsels further argued that the pleas which have not been taken in the writ petitions before the learned Single Judge, the appellants are estopped to argue the said pleas before this Court in these appeals and prayed for dismissing the appeals filed on behalf of the appellants. 8. In support of the contention counsels for the respondents relied upon the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as High Court which reads as under:- Supreme Court Judgments:- (i) Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal Nos.3649-3650 of 2020 decided on07.12.2020. (ii) Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. passed in Civil Appeal No.367 of 2017 decided on 11.12.2017. (iii) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.Reported in 2010 (6) SCC 759 . High Court Cases:- (i) Kamal Yadav & Ors. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.638/2021 decided on17.02.2021. (ii) Namrata Jat & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1347/2021 decided on05.03.2021. (iii) Vikram Aditya Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15419/2019 decided on24.10.2019. 9. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.638/2021 decided on17.02.2021. (ii) Namrata Jat & Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1347/2021 decided on05.03.2021. (iii) Vikram Aditya Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.15419/2019 decided on24.10.2019. 9. Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. The learned Single Judge while deciding the writ petitions considered various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and in para Nos.10 to 12 of the judgment held as under:- “10. It is a settled position of the law, as is consistently underlined by the Hon’ble Apex Court, that in the absence of any categoric provision for re-evaluation, judicial review must be rarely and sparingly exercised, preferably under exceptional circumstances. The cardinal principles of judicial review in evaluation of candidates, including circumstances wherein judicial review is sparingly permitted, as well as the caution to be observed by the courts in matters of recruitment in public services, are defined in the judgment of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh (Supra) . The observations made therein are reiterated herein-under: 30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 31. 31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of the impasse-exclude the suspect or offending question. 32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination- whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers. 11. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers. 11. In obedience of the aforesaid, it is apparent that though re-evaluation of answers/questions may be permitted by Courts subject to the rules framed in connection therewith, the practice of re- evaluation has been time and again abhorred by several judicial pronouncements, especially on account of the mitigating factum of the courts not possessing the requisite expertise in academic matters to understand the nuances of the impugned questions-answers and the framework within which they are incorporated into the examination and/or drafted therewith. Therefore, it is not permissible for Courts to examine the question papers and answers sheets by itself, particularly when the body conducting the examination has assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. Furthermore, the interference is sparingly permissible, only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee, which has sufficiently accumulated prowess in their stream of academia. In any event, the assessment of the questions by the Courts itself to arrive at the correctness of answers is not permissible. Similar views, as those enunciated in Ran Vijay Singh (Supra) , have been endorsed in Vikesh Kumar Gupta (Supra) and Pankaj Raj (Supra) as well. 12. At this juncture, it is necessary to address the argument raised by the petitioners regarding the power of a writ court to exercise judicial review in respect of disputed answer keys and/or question- answers, where it clearly appears that the disputed answer keys and/or question- answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In this regard, it is necessary to duly take note of the exception carved by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Kanpur University (Supra) whereby interference with the answer keys may be permissible, provided that the same is proved to be wrong on the face of it and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. The answer key must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such that no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.” 11. The answer key must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such that no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.” 11. These appeals filed on behalf of the appellants deserve to be dismissed for the reasons; firstly, the learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petitions relied upon various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court wherein it has been held that the scope of judicial review is very limited with regard to interference in the opinion of the Expert Committee; secondly, although the allegation of mala-fide has been levelled by some of the appellants against the members of the Expert Committee, however, no member of the Expert Committee has been made as party either in the writ petitions or in the present appeals, therefore, the allegation of mala- fide is baseless and deserves rejection; thirdly, the advertisement in question relates to the year 2018 and as informed by counsel for the RPSC the selection process is already over and subsequent advertisement has also been issued by the RPSC in the year 2022 of which written examination has already been held in the year 2022 itself, in the circumstances before us, we are not inclined to disturb the appointments already made and it will not be appropriate now to unsettle the position in the Department with regard to appointments, therefore, in our considered view, no case is made out for interference by this Court. 12. In that view of the matter, these appeal are dismissed. 13. Copy of this order be separately placed in each connected file.” In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed in view of the judgment passed by this Court in the matter of Sanjay Kumar Bhakar (supra).