[Rajasthan Judicial Services] High Court issues opinions in plea challenging 2021 preliminaries answer key and for non-reduction of cutoff scores for ST Widows category

[Rajasthan Judicial Services] High Court issues opinions in plea challenging 2021 preliminaries answer key and for non-reduction of cutoff scores for ST Widows category

The Divisional Bench of the High Court of Rajasthan, Jaipur, has issued an opinion in a written motion challenging the Answer Key of the Civil Judge Framework of the Court Services of Rajasthan (Preliminary Examination), which was conducted on 28.11.2021 and the final result was declared on 11.01. .2022.

Judge Manindra Mohan Shrivastava and Judge Birendra Kumarruled,

“Issue notices of motions for an order as well as stay requests to the respondents by registered mail as well as by usual means upon payment of the PF and notices no later than 31.01.2022.

Opinions are made returnable within two weeks.

List these cases as of 16.02.2022 for new response, admission and stay orders.

A copy of this decree accompanies the notifications.

A copy of this order will also be placed on the registers of all petitions.”

Several questions were challenged by the petitioner on the grounds that the questions were wrongly deleted, wrongly reframed, off-curriculum or that the answers provided did not comply with the recent amendment to the Juvenile Justice Act 2015 ( care and protection of children). opinion of 07.08.2021.

The petitioner alleged that she had obtained 50 marks, but was not selected for the main examination by subjecting her to discrimination. She alleged that for the first time different threshold criteria were provided for various categories/subcategories and although reduced thresholds were provided for General Widow at 45, no reduced threshold was provided for Scheduled Tribe Widow.

The Applicant also argued that the rules of the game changed after the start of the selection process and that such a course of action of prescribing different reduced cut-off marks does not appear in the rules governing the selection process, nor in the announcement.

Similar plea before the Main Bench

Notably, on Monday, the Main Bench of Jodhpur also issued a notice in a similar written motion requesting respondents to rectify the final answer key of Civil Judges Framework of Judicial Services of Rajasthan (Preliminary Examination) and award bonus points to all candidates. .

The bench comprising Judge Vinod Kumar Bharwani and Judge Sandeep Mehtaobserved,

“Issue Notice of Motion in Brief as well as Motion to Stay to Respondents. ‘Dasti’ Service Permitted. Rule Made Callable 2022-2-17.”

Adv. Arpit Samaria, appearing on behalf of the applicants, also requested a dispensation from recalculating the scores, and thus from preparing a list of eligible candidates including all those candidates, who obtained more points than the last candidate initially authorized to stand. in the main exam. He prayed that in addition to the originally allowed candidates, the newly included candidates would also be allowed to be on the main exam eligibility list.

Dismissal of the challenge by the main panel

On 28.01.2022, the Rajasthan High Court in Jodhpur had dismissed a plea challenging the final results of the Rajasthan Judicial Services Civil Judges Framework (Preliminary Examination).

The plea was filed by a certain Ashwini Chaturvedi. She had challenged the administration’s decision on the correct choice for question 80 and its decision to delete question 81, whereby the complainant had only missed the threshold for the RJS preliminary examination by a point.

A dividing bench of Judge Akil Kureshi and Judge Madan Gopal Vyasobserved,

We do not believe that the petitioner has established any case of interference. As is well established by a series of Supreme Court judgments, interference by the High Court in specialist areas where recruitment is carried out through specialist agencies, should be the minimum.

The court, while relying on Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh, observed that the accuracy of questions or answers, the role of the High Court in exercising written jurisdiction under Section 226 of the Constitution of India would be extremely limited. Unless it is pointed out that the question or answer is completely and clearly wrong, the High Court would not overturn a carefully considered decision by the expert body, the court added.

Read also : Rajasthan Court Services: High Court Rejects Plea Challenging 2021 Preliminary Examination Answer Key

Mark M. Gagnon