The Rajasthan High Court has dismissed a writ petition filed by a judicial services aspirant who challenged the preliminary examination result and answer key for Civil Judge recruitment 2024. The court refused to interfere, emphasizing the limited scope of judicial review in academic matters.
Background of the Case
The case arose after Khushbu Choudhary, a 32-year-old candidate, appeared in the Rajasthan Judicial Services Preliminary Examination held on June 23, 2024. Following the exam, a model answer key was released, and candidates were invited to raise objections.
Read also:- Delhi HC Orders Newslaundry to Remove ‘Disparaging’ Remarks Against Aaj Tak, India Today
Choudhary submitted objections, alleging errors in certain questions and answers. However, when the final answer key and results were published on July 15, 2024, her name did not appear in the list of qualified candidates.
Aggrieved, she approached the High Court seeking cancellation of the result and preparation of a revised answer key and merit list.
Arguing in person, the petitioner claimed that:
- Several objections were not properly considered
- Two questions were deleted, unfairly affecting her score
- Certain answers, especially in legal interpretation and criminal law, were incorrect
She also argued that had her answers been accepted, her marks would have improved, possibly enabling her to qualify.
Read also:- Post-Retirement Pay Reduction Valid If Disciplinary Proceedings Began During Service: Supreme Court
The division bench of Justice Arun Monga and Justice Sunil Beniwal examined the disputed questions in detail and found no merit in the challenge.
On deletion of two questions, the court noted:
“The questions have been deleted uniformly for all candidates… the approach cannot be termed arbitrary or discriminatory.”
The bench rejected the argument that the petitioner was uniquely disadvantaged, warning that accepting such claims would create “reverse discrimination.”
Regarding another disputed question involving criminal law (Section 300 CrPC), the court clarified that the expert committee’s answer was legally sound. Even if the petitioner’s answer were accepted, she would gain only one additional mark-still below the cut-off of 68 marks.
Read also:- No Cheating in Movie Loss: Supreme Court Quashes FIR Against Filmmaker
On a question relating to legal interpretation, the court acknowledged her understanding but stated:
“The difference… is merely one of expression,” noting that “homogenous interpretation” conveyed the same meaning as the principle of ejusdem generis.
The court strongly reiterated that it would not act as an appellate authority over academic decisions:
“Where two reasonable views are possible… the view adopted by the Expert Committee must ordinarily prevail.”
It added that interference is justified only when the answer key is clearly arbitrary or perverse-something not established in this case.
The court concluded that no grounds existed to interfere with the examination process or results. It also noted that the recruitment process had already attained finality, with selected candidates appointed.
The writ petition was dismissed, along with any pending applications.
Case Details
Case Title: Khushbu Choudhary vs Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur
Case Number: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 12461/2024
Decision Date: 12 March 2026
Counsels:
- Petitioner: Khushbu Choudhary (in person)
- Respondent: Ms. Vaishnav Nikita, Mr. Chayan Bothra
