Summary
The Supreme Court directed Rajasthan’s Public Service Commission to apply a revised expert answer key to all unsuccessful School Lecturer Exam candidates, extending relief beyond the 311 appellants while protecting the earlier select list and appointments. It accepted the expert report and uniform redistribution of marks for deleted questions. Category cut-offs were to be published and candidates meeting or exceeding them offered appointments against 1,045 vacancies. Revision and appointment recommendations were to be completed within three months.
Issues
- Whether the revised expert answer key should govern all unsuccessful candidates or only litigants.
- Whether the remaining answer-key objections and redistribution of deleted-question marks warranted interference.
- How revised results should be implemented without disturbing existing selections.
Held
- Judicial review of answer keys is limited and gives due weight to subject experts. A key is presumed correct unless demonstrably wrong, rather than merely doubtful or susceptible to another interpretation. Publication of keys and expert examination of objections promote transparency and fairness. (¶¶ 14, 15: Key answers prepared by the paper-setter)
- The fresh expert review substantially addressed the grievances and corrected twenty-two answers across nine subjects. The Court rejected the remaining objections examined, including the question distinguishing forty-five working hours including preparation from forty-five teaching hours alone, and accepted implementation of the report. (¶¶ 5, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20)
- After deletion, the paper was properly treated as comprising the remaining questions. Uniform redistribution of deleted-question marks according to correct answers was not arbitrary or irrational; neither marks only for attempting deleted questions nor blanket full marks was required. (¶¶ 21, 22)
- Correction of the key required revision for all candidates outside the earlier select list, including non-litigants. The examination body’s error was no ground to deny them the benefit merely because they had not approached the Court. Existing select-list candidates and their appointments were protected. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- The Commission had to publish revised results and the original last-selected category-wise cut-offs. Candidates reaching or exceeding the relevant cut-offs on revision were to receive offers against the identified 1,045 vacancies. Revision and recommendations were to finish within three months, followed by consequential State action. (¶ 24)
Result
Appeals disposed of with directions to revise results for candidates outside the earlier select list, publish cut-offs and make recommendations against 1,045 vacancies within three months. Existing selections and appointments protected; State to take consequential steps.