[2024:RJ-JP:47575]

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN

BENCH AT JAIPUR

S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14832/2024

Dr. Pankaj Yadav S/o Bhagwan Sahay Yadav, Aged About 26

Years, R/o- Plot No 877-A Ganesh Nagar Main, Niwaru Road,
Jhotwara, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And
Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Department Of Medical, Health And Family
Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Medical Directorate,
Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Thru Its
Registrar, Sector 18 Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
Connected With
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14640/2024
Dr Anuj Soni S/o Shri Vijay Soni, Aged About 28 Years, Resident
Of Near Shakti Marriage Garden, Sawimadhopur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan University Health And Sciences, Kumbha Marg,
Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Medical And Health, C-
Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14833/2024
1. Dr. Lipsa Meena D/o Dal Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Banda Pura, Suroth, Karauli (Rajasthan).
2. Dr. Shriya Saxena D/o Manoj Saxena, Aged About 28
Years, R/o 137 Swarn Jayanti Nagar, Near Mohan Public
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (2 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

School, Bharatpur Rajasthan.

----Petitioners
Versus
1. Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And
Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Department Of Medical, Health And Family
Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Medical Directorate,
Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Thru Its
Registrar, Sector 18 Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14834/2024
Dr. Praveen Kumar S/o Girraj Singh, Aged About 32 Years, R/o
Village Naya Ganv Deolen, Dist. Karouli (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And
Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Department Of Medical, Health And Family
Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Medical Directorate,
Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Thru Its
Registrar, Sector 18 Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14835/2024
Dr. Ashok Bundela S/o Subhash Bundela, Aged About 27 Years,
R/o Thakar Wala Kua, Somvanshi Colony, Alwar (Rajasthan).
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Principal Secretary, Department Of Medical, Health And
Family Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat,
Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
2. The Director, Department Of Medical, Health And Family
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (3 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

Welfare, Government Of Rajasthan, Medical Directorate,

Ashok Nagar, Jaipur (Rajasthan).
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Thru Its
Registrar, Sector 18 Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar Jaipur
(Rajasthan).
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15020/2024
Surbhi Sharma Daughter Of Shri Ganpat Lal Sharma, Aged
About 25 Years, Resident Of 104 G-1, Morari Bhawan, Brijpuri,
Jagatpura, Jaipur.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Government Of
Rajasthan, Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. Director, Public Health, Medical And Health Services,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Its
Registrar, Jagatpura, Jaipur
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15331/2024
Bharat Beniwal S/o Uda Ram, Aged About 30 Years, R/o
Beniwalo Ki Dhani, Puniyo Ki Beri, Pareu, Barmer, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical And Health Department, Govt. Of Rajasthan,
Government Secretariat, Jaipur.
2. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services,
Rajasthan, Jaipur.
3. The Registrar, Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences,
Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
4. The Coordinator, Medical Officer (Medical) Recruitment
Examination 2024, Rajasthan University Of Health
Sciences, Sector-18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Jaipur,
Rajasthan.
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (4 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15725/2024
Dr. Narsi Lal Sepat S/o Mangal Ram Sepat, Aged About 40 Years,
R/o Mangala Bhuwana Ganesh (Esti) Ki Dhani, Mohan Ka Bas,
Tehsil Kishangarh Renwal, District Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. The State Of Rajasthan, Through Its Principal Secretary,
Medical, Health And Family Welfare Department,
Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur (Raj.).
2. The Director (Public Health), Medical And Health Services,
Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. The Rajasthan University Of Health Sciences, Through Its
Registrar, Sector - 18, Kumbha Marg, Pratap Nagar, Tonk
Road, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
----Respondents
S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 16622/2024
Dr Neha Sharma D/o Shri Narendra Sharma, Aged About 25
Years, Resident Of Vivekanand Colony, Deoli, Tonk, Rajasthan.
----Petitioner
Versus
1. Rajasthan University Health And Sciences, Kumbha Marg,
Pratap Nagar, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
2. The Director, Department Of Medical And Health, C-
Scheme, Jaipur, Rajasthan.
3. State Of Rajasthan, Through Principal Secretary,
Department Of Medical And Health, Govt. Secretariat,
Jaipur.
----Respondents

For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Gitesh Joshi

Mr. Kaleem Ahamed Khan
Mr. Vikas Kabra
Mr. B.B.L Sharma
Mr. Ram Pratap Saini with
Mr. Aamir Khan
Mr. Akshit Gupta with
Ms. Pragya Seth
Mr. Nakul Bansal
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (5 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

Mr. R.K Jain

For Respondent(s) : Mr. Archit Bohra, AGC with
Ms. Lipi Garg
Mr. Ram Singh Bhati
Mr. Mohd. Ashfaq Khan with
Ms. Shama Khan
Ms. Rekha Jain
Experts:
Dr. Tripti Sharma Rai Professor, RUHS
College of Dental Sciences
Dr. Neha Gupta Professor, RUHS
College of Dental Sciences
Dr. Sireesha Sundari Giri Krishana
Professor
Dr. Shikha Saxena Professor
Dr. Setu Mathur Professor
Dr. Saurabh Chaturvedi Professor
Dr. Mohammad Sharique
Dr. Gaurav Dalela

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAMEER JAIN

Judgment

Reportable

Reserved on: 20/11/2024

Pronounced on: 05/12/2024

1. In the present batch of writ petitions, the scope of the

controversy involved, albeit not limited to but is broadly and

predominantly defined by the challenge raised regarding the

correctness and/or validity of the final answer key dated

06.08.2024, as issued by the respondents in terms of which the

respondents have issued the final merit list which may further

result in non-consideration of the candidature of the petitioners,

solely for the reason that the preparation of the final merit is done

in terms of wrongful and faulty answer key. Therefore, considering

the fact that the writ petitions warrant adjudication on common

questions of law; with the consent of learned counsel appearing

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (6 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

on behalf of all the parties, SBCWP No. 14832/2024 titled as

Dr. Pankaj Yadav Vs. State Of Rajasthan And Ors., is being

taken up as the lead petition. It is cautiously clarified that any

discrepancies in the present batch of writ petitions, pertain purely

to the factual narratives contained therein and not viz-a-viz the

questions of law to be determined by this Court and the instant

judgment shall be made applicable on mutatis mutandis basis.

BACKGROUND

2. The overarching factual matrix, enveloping the lis to be

determined by this Court, is that the respondent-Rajasthan

University of Health Science (hereinafter referred to as RUHS) vide

notification dated 06.03.2024 invited applications for 172 posts of

Medical Officer (Dental) and subsequently on 12.04.2024 a

revised notification qua the said recruitment was released and the

applications were invited in-between the period of 22.04.2024 and

21.05.2024. Thereafter, by a successive notification dated

31.05.2024, the number of intake qua the said post was increased

to 209.

3. The petitioners appeared in the examination for the

said posts wherein, the said examination was objective/Multiple

Choice Questions based with number of questions as 100.

Consequentially, the respondents on 18.07.2024 issued the Model

Answer Key as per the master paper for perusal of the candidates.

Consequently, the respondents issued a press note on the official

website inviting objections with regard to the discrepancies in the

Model Answer key. For submission of objections a time window in-

between 19.07.2024 and 20.07.2024 till 5 P.M. was provided, and

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (7 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

the candidates were required to submit their objections along with

substantial/relied upon study material through offline mode.

SUBMISSIONS BY LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING THE

PETITIONERS.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioners had

argued that the impugned action of the respondent-RUHS, in not

adequately and correctly examining the objections raised by the

petitioners is patently arbitrary, unjust and unfair, thereby being

violative of the fundamental rights of the petitioners, as enshrined

under the Constitution of India.

5. Moreover, the respondents offered a miniscule period

within which the objections were to be submitted. Nevertheless,

ignoring or without tendering any reasonable justification qua the

said objections, the respondents on 06.08.2024 issued the

impugned final answer key. It was further contended that despite

the fact that the petitioners are otherwise meritorious and

qualified aspirant for the said post, but primarily because the

respondents were not vigilant enough about the assessment in

terms of the impugned final answer key, the same might lead to

non-selection of the candidature of the petitioners or affect their

actual merit secured.

6. Further, learned counsel had made threefold

contentions:
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (8 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

6.1 Primarily that due to the said wrongful evaluation of the

questions, the petitioners have lost certain marks and other

candidates have wrongfully gained certain marks.

6.2 Secondly, that the respondents issued the mark-sheets

of the petitioners wherein the expected cut-off marks are stated

as per the category of the candidate, howsoever, due to the said

wrong articulation/calculation of questions and cursory

consideration of the objections raised by the petitioners, their

candidature is being affected from a slight variance.

6.3 Tertiary that the respondents have evaluated the

question papers and released the final answer key qua which

miniscule time was granted to submit the objections rather in-

between the said period the respondents have formulated the

impugned provisional selection list, without tender a reasonable

justification qua the objections raised by various candidates.

7. In order to establish their case, learned counsel for the

petitioners further contended as follows:

7.1 That under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, a

writ court can exercise judicial review in respect of disputed

answer keys and question-answers, where it clearly appears that

the disputed answer key is palpably and demonstrably erroneous

and that if a prudent man can prove them to be incorrect by way

of his ordinary understanding, then judicial review is not

prohibited under such circumstances. Thus, considering the fact

that the answer keys issued by the respondent-RUHS are prima

facie demonstrably erroneous and objectively incorrect, judicial

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (9 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

review in respect of such an answer key is warranted for

protecting the fundamental rights of the petitioners.

7.2 That in matters of public employment, especially on

such eminent posts, the scope of fallaciousness must be removed

in-toto and due diligence ought to be exercised at the end of the

body conducting the examination to ensure transparency, fairness

and correctness in the recruitment process, at all stages.

7.3 That with regards to the disputed answers/questions,

the petitioners placed reliance upon authentic text books, which

makes it abundantly clear that there is no room for doubt and

therefore, the answer key issued by the respondent-RUHS

warrants judicial intervention.

7.4 That in Kanpur University and Ors. vs. Samir Gupta

and Ors. reported in 1983 AIR (SC) 1230, the Hon’ble Apex

Court categorically held that it would be unfair to penalize the

candidates for not giving an answer which accords with the

answer key, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated

to be incorrect. Hence, there is no doubt that in the facts and

circumstances of the case, when the answer key is erroneous and

demonstrably wrong, the candidates cannot be made to suffer.

7.5 That the answer keys have to be prepared very

carefully, primarily for the welfare of the candidates, who study for

the examination diligently. An incorrect answer key results in the

merit being made a casualty and/or a mockery on the face of

fairness.

7.6 That one can understand the predicament of a young

student at the threshold of their career, when despite giving

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (10 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

correct answers, the students suffers and as a result, faces a huge

setback, for no fault attributable to the student. Moreover, in

educational matters, where the Courts are slow in extending

judicial interference, the responsibility upon the respondent-RUHS

increases manifestly, for conducting a fair and proper examination,

with demonstrably correct answers.

8. In support of the contentions made insofar, learned

counsel had placed reliance upon an array of judgments, as

passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court and also this Court, in

furtherance of the dictum enunciated in Kanpur University

(Supra). Amongst the judgments so relied upon, are Manish

Ujwal vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University reported

in (2005) 13 SCC 744, Guru Nayak Dev University vs.

Saumil Garg and Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 749, Rishal

and Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors.

reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81, Ankit Sharma and Ors. vs.

Rajasthan Public Service Commission and Ors.: SLP Nos.

4270-4271/2022, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No. 497/2022

titled as RPSC and Ors. vs. Gyanendra Sharma and Ors., D.B.

Special Appeal (Writ) No. 847/2022 titled as Suman and

Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan, D.B. Special Appeal (Writ) No.

1092/2015 titled as Pankaj Oswal and Ors. vs. RPSC and

Ors. and State of Rajasthan and Ors. vs. Kamlesh Kumar

Sharma and Ors. reported in 2014 (1) WLC (Raj.) 349,

amongst others.

9. In light of the foregoing submissions, it was

conclusively argued that by preparing disputed answer keys in the

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (11 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

field of public employment, the respondent-RUHS has tainted the

entire examination process, due to which the future of many

candidates are left hanging in the balance, despite no fault on

their part. Therefore, the petitioners cannot be blamed for the

errors attributable to the respondent-RUHS and as a result, the

petitioners cannot be denied selection, on the basis of a

demonstrably incorrect answer key. The denial of selection to the

petitioners is a direct violation of their fundamental rights

conferred under Articles 14,15 and 16 of the Constitution of India.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL REPRESENTING

THE RESPONDENTS.

10. Per contra, learned counsel representing the

respondents had stoutly opposed the contentions made by the

counsel representing the petitioners and had averred that that the

scope of judicial review is limited in the matters of administrative

decision-making. It was contended that the Court, while exercising

writ jurisdiction, can only consider the correctness of the decision-

making process and not the decision itself. While exercising its

powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Court

cannot take it upon itself to actually ascertain the correctness of

the disputed answer key, for the simple reason, that the Courts

are not experts of the contested subject-matter and therefore, do

not possess the requisite expertise to ascertain the correctness of

the answer-key. Hence, for undertaking the said task, the Court

must leave it upon the experts to ascertain the correctness and

validity of questions/answers, as they would be more susceptible

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (12 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

to the nuances of the subject-matter and thereby, adjudge upon

the correctness in an informed manner.

11. It was further averred that when the objections were

called, qua the 100 questions, grievances were submitted by 126

candidates for 61 questions and no grievances are submitted qua

the remaining 39 questions. Moreover, to address the said

grievances a committee of experts was constituted by the

respondent-RUHS vide order dated 22.07.2024 (Annexure –

R/1/1) Withal, vide order dated 25.07.2024 a committee of

subject experts was also constituted and thereafter a detailed

report was furnished rendering justification to each and every

disputed question. Further, learned counsel vide placing reliance

upon the provisions of Bhartiya Sakshay Adhiniyam, 2023 had

apprised the Court with the fact that the opinion of the experts

play a vital role in deciding the objections and same is to be given

a higher pedestal and merely the contention of the candidate

cannot supervene upon the opinion of the experts; especially

when the subject matter of dispute pertains to a specific distinct

field i.e. Dental – Medical.

12. Subsequently, learned counsel had averred that on

receipt of objections to the extent of 61 questions, the committee

only after an assiduous study of the same had found that as many

as 16 questions require consideration and accordingly there

exhibition was published wherein certain question-answer options

were changed and it was found that the question was framed

wrongly and none of the answers matches to the questions or

rather the question itself does not relates to the answering options
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (13 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

were deleted and in such case bonus marks were allotted the all

the candidates maintaining a parity amongst all.

13. It was also averred that once after having the exam

conducted and answer key being published, objections can only be

raised wherein all candidates who have participated in the said

examination are given single opportunity to raise objections in

respect of all the questions and answers thereof by placing on

record the relied upon study material.

14. As a result, whilst praying for the dismissal of the

present batch of petitions, learned counsel for the respondent-

RUHS placed reliance upon the dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court

as enunciated in Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of U.P.

and Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, Tajvir Singh Sodhi

and Ors. vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir reported in

2023/INSC/309, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission,

through its Chairman and Anr. vs. Rahul Singh and Anr.

reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors.

vs. State of Rajasthan and Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC

309, Bihar Staff Selection Commission and Ors. vs. Arun

Kumar and Ors. reported in (2020) 6 SCC 362 and Kavita

Bhargava vs. Registrar, Examination, Rajasthan High Court,

Jodhpur: D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2253/2022, amongst

others.

DISCUSSION AND FINDINGS

15. Heard and considered the rival arguments made by the

learned counsel representing various parties.

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (14 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

16. Upon an assiduous scanning of the record, considering

the material facts and circumstances of the case, considering the

judgments cited at the Bar and taking note of the arguments

averred by the learned counsel for the parties, this Court at this

juncture, deems it appropriate to jot down indubitable facts:-

16.1 That the instant batch of petitions is filed with

controversy that arose and is pertaining to the recruitment

notification dated 06.03.2024 for selection of candidates on 172

(later on revised and increased to 209 posts) of Medical Officers

(Dental) by direct recruitment examination.

16.2 That vide the Information Booklet qua Medical Officer

(Dental) Direct Recruitment Examination, 2024, respondent-RUHS

had issued the requisites, for instance, the minimum eligibility

criteria, syllabus, list of books etc.

16.3 That after successful conduct of the said examination,

the respondent-RUHS published the model answer key dated

06.08.2024.

16.4 That albeit the objections were invited by the

respondent-RUHS for the said 100 question-answers, qua which a

period i.e. in between 19.07.2024 and 20.07.2024 till 05.00 P.M.

was rendered and for consideration of the said objections an

Expert committee was constituted.

16.5 That as many as 126 candidates have raised objections

against 61 answers, nonetheless, the expert committee after an

assiduous scrutinizing concluded that 16 questions were to be

explained/considered. Resultantly, reasonable justification/

clarification qua the same was tendered and either the answers to
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (15 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

such questions were changed (along with requisite explanation) or

bonus marks were allotted to all the candidates.

17. From the overarching factual narrative of the present

batch of writ petitions, it is rather apparent that the scope of the

controversy/lis before this Court pertains to the judicial review of

the final answers’ key dated 06.08.2024, as published for the said

examination, pursuant to receiving of the objections from select

petitioners/candidates.

18. At this nascent juncture, prior to delving into the arena

of assessment of the final answer key dated 06.08.2024, with

regards to the objections raised juxtaposed with the answers

crystalized pursuant to the consideration of said objections, this

Court deems it appropriate to explicate on the following key legal

considerations, which often envelop matters concerning the

assessment of answer keys in public examinations, namely:-

18.1 Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India in Examinations for Recruitment in Public

Services.

18.2 The ‘Exceptional Circumstance’: When can an

interference be made by the Courts?

18.3 The ‘Exceptional Circumstance’: What is palpably and

demonstrably erroneous?

18.4 Limitations of Courts in Matters of Judicial Review of

Answer Keys.

A. Scope of Judicial Review under Article 226 of the

Constitution of India in Examinations for Recruitment in

Public Services.
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (16 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

18.1.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court, through a plethora of

judicial pronouncements, has time and again held that the Courts

ought to be extremely reluctant to substitute their own views as to

what is correct and well-judged/ascertained, in relation to

academic matters, in preference to those formulated by and

arrived at, by professional experts possessing prowess, proficiency

and expertise in the actual subjects included in the impugned

examinations.

18.1.2 In Ran Vijay Singh (Supra) and Vikesh Kumar

Gupta (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court has endorsed the view

that re-evaluations of answer keys may be permitted by Courts,

which shall be purely subject to the rules framed qua the

administration of the concerned examination. In any event, the

practice of Court’s re-evaluation of answer-keys, as prepared by

subject-matter experts, is time and again abominated, primarily

looking to the mitigating factum of the Courts not possessing the

requisite knowledge/expertise in academic matters, nuances of

which can only be understood by subject-matter experts who have

spent a considerable amount of time studying the subjects and

garnering experience in their concerned field of study. No one

would be more suited for carrying out an assessment of an answer

key, than an expert who comprehensively understands the

framework of the question paper and the context/purpose with

which the impugned question is incorporated in the body of the

examination.
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (17 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

18.1.3 The scope of judicial review is miniscule, insofar

as Court’s interference is sparingly permissible, only after

obtaining the opinion of experts, who have accumulated sufficient

knowledge in their stream of academia. Regardless, the Courts,

purely on their own volition and knowledge, cannot

determine/ascertain the correctness of an answer-key.

B. The ‘Exceptional Circumstance’: When can an

interference be made by the Courts?

18.2.1 The only exception carved out, permitting the

Court’s interference in disputed answer keys whilst exercising

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, pertains

to when the disputed answer key/question-answers appear to be

‘palpably and demonstrably erroneous’.

18.2.2 The dictum of the Hon’ble Apex Court, as

enunciated in Ran Vijay Singh (Supra) is reproduced herein-

under:-

“30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear

and we only propose to highlight a few significant
conclusions. They are:

30.1. 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;
30.2. 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 re-evaluation 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;
30.3. The Court should not at all re-evaluate or
scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (18 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

has no expertise in the matter and academic

matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The Court should presume the correctness
of the key answers and proceed on that
assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt,
the benefit should go to the examination
authority rather than to the candidate.
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 an
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
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (19 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

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.”

18.2.3 Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Vikesh

Kumar Gupta (Supra), held as under:-

“11. Though re-evaluation can be directed if Rules

permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-
evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts
which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not
permissible for the High Court to examine the
question papers and answer sheets itself,
particularly when the Commission has assessed
the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal
Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur
and Anr.: (2010) 6 SCC 759) Courts have to show
deference and consideration to the
recommendation of the Expert Committee who
have the expertise to evaluate and make
recommendations [See-Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L.
Ramesh and Ors. : (2010) 8 SCC 372).

12. In view of the above law laid down by this Court,

it was not open to the Division Bench to have
examined the correctness of the questions and the
answer key to come to a conclusion different from
that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated
12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on
Richal and Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service
Commission and Ors.: (2018) 8 SCC 81. In the said
judgment, this Court interfered with the selection
process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert
committee but did not enter into the correctness of
the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the
said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the
dispute in this case.
13. A perusal of the above judgments would
make it clear that courts should be very slow in
interfering with expert opinion in academic
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (20 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

matters. In any event, assessment of the questions

by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not
permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments
to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of
cases challenging selections pending in courts for a
long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in
appointments is the continuance of those appointed
on temporary basis and their claims for
regularization. The other consequence resulting from
delayed appointments to public posts is the serious
damage caused to administration due to lack of
sufficient personnel.”

18.2.4 Hence, in light of the foregoing observations, the

only exception carved out, whereby the Court’s may extend

indulgence in disputed question-answers, is when the same

appear to be ‘palpably and demonstrably erroneous’.

C. The ‘Exceptional Circumstance’: What is palpably and

demonstrably erroneous?

18.3.1 The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the notable judgment

of Kanpur University (Supra), expounded on what is ‘palpably

and demonstrably wrong’, by holding as under:-

“15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of

great importance to the student community.
Normally, one would be inclined to the view,
especially if one has been a paper setter and an
examiner, that the key answer furnished be the
paper setter and accepted by the University as
correct, should not be allowed to be challenged.
One way of achieving it is not to publish the key
answer at all. If the University had not published the
key answer along with the result of the test, no
controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is
not a correct way of looking at these matters which
involve the future of hundreds of students who are
aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the
key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy
would have been worse than the disease because, so
many students would have had to suffer the injustice
in silence. The publication of the key answer has
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (21 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

unravelled a happy state of affairs to which the

University and the State Government must find a
solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the key
answer has given them an opportunity to have a
closer look at the system of examinations which they
conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the
human system.
16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the
University, contended that no challenge should be
allowed to be made to the correctness of a key
answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We
agree that the key-answer should be assumed
to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and
that it should not be held to be wrong by an
inferential process of reasoning or by a process
of rationalisation. It must be clearly
demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it
must be such as no reasonable body of men
well-versed in the particular subject would
regard as correct. The contention of the
University is falsified in this case by a large
number of acknowledged text-books, which are
commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-
books leave, no room for doubt that the answer
given by the students is correct and the key
answer is incorrect.”

18.3.2 While further elaborating upon the test laid down

in Kanpur University (Supra), the Hon’ble Apex Court in West

Bengal Central School Service Commission and Ors. vs.

Abdul Halim reported in (2019) 18 SCC 39 laid down the test to

determine whether an answer-key is palpably and demonstrably

erroneous. The relevant extract is reproduced herein-under:-

“8. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the

Court is to see whether the decision impugned is
vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to
determine whether a decision is vitiated by error
apparent on the face of the record is whether the
error is self-evident on the face of the record or
whether the error requires examination or
argument to establish it. If an error has to be
established by a process of reasoning, on points
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (22 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

where there may reasonably be two opinions, it

cannot be said to be an error on the face of the
record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan v.
Mallikarjuna. If the provision of a statutory Rule
is reasonably capable of two or more
constructions and one construction has been
adopted, the decision would not be open to
interference by the writ Court. It is only an
obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory
provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a
decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong
in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by
issuance of writ of Certiorari.
9. The sweep of power under Article 226 may be
wide enough to quash unreasonable orders. If a
decision is so arbitrary and capricious that no
reasonable person could have ever arrived at it,
the same is liable to be struck down by a writ
Court. If the decision cannot rationally be supported
by the materials on record, the same may be
regarded as perverse.”

18.3.3 Therefore, it is abundantly made clear that a

disputed question-answer shall only be treated as palpably and

demonstrably wrong, if it is shown that in order to catch hold of

the said error and/or notice the fallaciousness crept therein, one

ought not to apply a process of reasoning. Rather, the error should

be so apparent, that the same may discernible by a mere glimpse,

as opposed to a thoughtful analysis. Similarly, even when two

equally valiant interpretations of an answer are possible, it cannot

be said that the answer is demonstrably erroneous.

D. Limitations of Courts in Matters of Judicial Review of

Answer Keys.

18.4.1 A court carrying on the exercise of judicial review

merely scrutinizes the process in question-administrative or

statutory, but necessarily public in its outcome, to see if it was

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (23 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

arrived at in a fair and regular manner, free from illegality, not

motivated by malice or mala fides or not so manifestly

unreasonable in its conclusion that no reasonable individual placed

in that situation would arrive at such a conclusion. In this regard,

reliance can be placed upon the dictum of this Court as enunciated

in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 4777/2021 titled as Surjan Lal

Dhawan and Ors. vs. State of Rajasthan.

18.4.2 Having taken note of the established legal position

with regards to the scope of judicial review under Article 226, this

Court, in order to extend interference in the present batch of

petitions, needs to assess whether the impugned model answer

key for the contested questions, is palpably and demonstrably

erroneous/incorrect or not.

19. Further, it is also noted that the syllabus qua the said

examination was released way before the date of examination vide

the Information Booklet for MODDRE, 2024. Upon a perusal from

the same it can be noted that the respondent-RUHS has

unanimously and categorically noted that the syllabus for the said

examination qua the said post shall include all the subjects studied

by a BDS graduate during the four-year curriculum as prescribed

by the DCI. It can also be deduced that the curriculum that a

student enrolled in the BDS programme studies not only includes

the books which are approved by the DCI but also several

conferences, seminars and paper publications that the students

construe, therefore, the latest and updated versions of all the

study material can only be the foremost option to extract the

answers for the disputed questions. For the sake of brevity, the
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (24 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

syllabus as prescribed under the said Information Booklet and

notification dated 25.08.2011 is reproduced herein below:

“Syllabus:
Syllabus for the said examination comprised of
all the subjects studies by BDS graduate during four-
year curriculum as prescribed by DCI.

Recommended books:
1. Human Anatomy, Embryology, Histology &
Medical Genetics
1. Snell (Richard S.) Clinical Anatomy
for Medical Students, Ed. 5 Llittle Brown &
company, Boston.
2. RJ LAST’S Anatomy- McMinn, 9th edition.
3. ROMANES(G.J.) Cunningham Manual of
Practical Anatomy : Head & Neack & Brain Ed.
15. Vol. III Oxford Medical publication.
4. WHEATER, BURKITT & DENIELS,
Functional Histology, Ed. 2, Churchill
Livingstone.
5. SADLER, LANGMAN’S, Medical
Embryology, Ed. 6.
6. JAMES E ANDERSON, Grant’s Atlas of
Anatomy, Williams & Wilkins.
7. WILLIAMS, Gray’s Anatomy, Ed.38.,
Churchill Livingstone.
8. EMERY, Medical Genetics.
2. Physiology
1. Guyton; Text book of Physiology, 9th
edition.
2. Ganong; Review of Medical Physiology,
19th edition
3. Vander; Human Physiology, 5th edition
4. Choudhari; Concise Medical Physiology, 2 nd
edition
5. Chaterjee; Human Physiology, 10th edition
6. A.K. Jain; Human Physiology for BDS
students, 1st edition
7. Berne & Levey; Physiology, 2nd edition
8. West-Best & Taylor’s, Physiological basis
of Medical Practise, 11th edition
EXPERIMENTAL PHYSIOLOGY:
1. Rannade; Practical Physiology, 4th edition
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (25 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

2. Ghai; a text book of practical physiology

3. Hutchison’s; Clinical Methods, 20th edition
3. Biochemistry
1. Concise text book of Biochemistry (3 rd
edition) 2001, T.N. Pattabiraman
2. Nutritional Biochemistry 1995, S.
Ramakrishnan and S.V. Rao
3. Lecture notes in Biochemistry 1984, J.K.
Kandlish
REFERENCE BOOKS:
1. Text book of Biochemistry with clinical
correlations 1997, T.N. Devlin
2. Harper’s Biochemistry, 1996, R.K. Murray
[Link]
Basic and applied Dental Biochemistry, 1979,
R.A.D. Williams & J.C. Elliot
4. Dental Anatomy, Embryology and Oral
Histology
1. Orban’s Oral Histology & Embryology- S.N.
Bhaskar
2. Oral Development & Histology- James &
Avery
3. Wheeler’s Dental Anatomy, Physiology &
Occlusion- Major M. Ash
4. Dental Anatomy- its relevance to dentistry
– Woelfel & Scheid
5. Applied Physiology of the mouth – Lavelle
6. Physiology & Biochemistry of the mouth –
Jenkins
5. General Pathology
1. Robbins – Pathologic Basis of Disease
Cotran, Kumar, Robbins
2. Anderson’s Pathology Vol 1 & 2 Editors –
Ivan Damjanov & James Linder
3. Wintrobe’s clinical Haematolog Lee,
Bithell, Foerster, Athens, Lukens
6. Microbiology
1. Text book of Microbiology – R.
Ananthanarayan & C.K. Jayaram Paniker
2. Medical Microbiology – David Greenwood
et al.
3. Microbiology – Prescott, et al.
4. Microbiology – Bernard [Link], et al.
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (26 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

5. Clinical & Pathogenic Microbiology –

Barbara J Howard, et al.
6. Mechanisms of Microbial diseases –
Moselio Schaechter, et al.
7. Immunology an Introduction – Tizard
8. Immunology 3rd edition – Evan Roilt, et al.
7. Dental Materials
1. Phillips Science of Dental Materials- 10 th
edn.- Kenneth J. Anusavice
2. Restorative Dental Materials- 10 edn. Robert
G. Craig
3. Notes on Dental Materials- E.C. Combe
4. Prep. Mannual for undergraduates- Dr. M.S.
Koudi & Dr. Sanjay Gouda B. Patil
8. General and dental pharmacology and
therapeutics
1. R.S. Satoskar, Kale Bhandarkar’s
Pharmacology and Pharmacolherapentics, 10th
Edition, Bombay Popular Prakashan 1991.
2. Bertam G katzung, Basic and Clinical
pharnacology 6th cd. Appleton & Lange 1997
3. Laucrence D.R. Clonical pharmacology 8th ed.
Churchill Livingstane 1997
4. Satoskar R.S. & Bhandarkar S.D.,
pharmacology and pharmaco Therapeutics part
I & part ii, 13th popular prakashan Bombay
1993
5. Tripathi K.D. Essentials of Medical
pharmacology 4th ed jaypee Brothers 1999.
9. General Medicine
Textbook of Medicine Davidson
Textbook of Medicine Hutchinson
10. General Surgery
Short practice of Surgery Baily & Love
11. Oral Pathology & Oral Microbiology
1. A Text Book of Oral Pathology Shafer,
Hine & Levy
2. Oral Pathology – Clinical Pathologic
correlations Regezi & Sciubba.
3. Oral Pathology Soames & Southam
4. Oral Pathology in the Tropics Prabhu,
Wilson, Johnson & Daftary
12. Public Health Dentistry
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (27 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

1. Dentistry Dental Practice and Community by

David F. Striffler and Brain A. Burt, Edn.- 1983.
W.B. Saunders Company
2. Principles of Dental Public Health by James
Morse Dunning, IVth Edition, 1986, Harward
University Press.
3. Dental Public Health and Community
Dentistry Ed by Anthony Jong Publication by
The C.V. Mosby Company 1981
4. Community Oral Health-A system approach
by Patricia P. Cormler and Joyee. I. Leavy
Published by Appleton-Century-Crofis/New
York, 1981
5. Community Dentistry-A problem oriented
approach by P.C. Dental Hand book, series Vol
8 by Stephen L. Silverman and Ames F. Tryon,
Series editor-Alvin F. Gardner, PSC publishing
company Inc. Littleton Massachuseltis, 1980.
6. Dental Public Health- An Introduction to
Community Dentistry. Edition by Geoffrey L.
Slack and Brain Burt, Published by John Wrigth
and sons Bristol, 1980
7. Oral Health Surveys- Basic Methods, 4 th
edition, 1997, published by W.H.O. Geneva
available at the regional office New Delhi.
8. Preventive Medicine and Hygiene-By Maxcy
and Rosenau, published by Appleton Century
Crofts, 1986.
9. Preventive Dentistry-by J.O. Forrest
published by John Wright and sons Bristoli.
1980.
10. Preventive Dentistry by Murray, 1997.
11. Text Book of Preventive and Social medicine
by Park and Park, 14th edition.
12. Community Dentistry by Dr. Soben Peter.
[Link] to Bio-statistics by B.K.
Mahajan
[Link] to Statistical Methods by
Grewal
[Link] and Preventive Dentistry
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (28 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

1. Pediatric Dentistry (Infancy through

Adolescences) Pinkhan.
2. Clinical Use of Fluorides-Stephen [Link].
3. Understanding of Dental Caries-Niki Foruk.
4. Handbook of Clinical Pedodontics-Kenneth.
D.
5. Dentistry for the Child and Adolescence-
Mc. Donald.
6. Pediatric Dentistry- Damle S.G.
7. Behaviour Management-Wright
8. Traumatic Injuries-Andereason
9. Textbook of Pedodontics- Dr. Shobha Tandon
14. Oral Medicine and Radiology
a) Oral Diagnosis, Oral Medicine & Oral
Pathology
1. Burkit – Oral Medicine – J.B. Lippincott
Company
2. Coleman- Principles of Oral Diagnosis –
Mosby Year Book
3. Jones – Oral Manifestations of Systemic
Diseases – W.B. Saunders company
4. Mitchell -Oral Diagnosis & Oral Medicine
5. Kerr – Oral Diagnosis
6. Miller – Oral Diagnosis & Treatment
7. Hutchinson – clinical Methods
8. Oral Pathology – Shafers
9. Sonis S.T., Fazio.R.C. and Fang.L –
Principles and Practice of Oral Medicine
b) Oral Radiology
1. White & Goaz – Oral Radiology – Mosby
Year Book
2. Weahrman – Dental Radiology – C.V.
Mosby Company
3. Stafne – Oral Roentgenographic Diagnosis
– W.B. Saunders Co.,
c) Forensic Odontology
1. Derek H. Clark – Practical Forensic
Odontology- Butterworth – Heinemann (1992)
2. C Michael Bowers, Gary Bell – Manual of
Forensic Odontology – Forensic Pr (1995)
[Link] and Dentofacial Orthopedics
1. Contemporary Orthodontics William R. Proffit
2. Orthodontics For Dental Students White And
Gardiner
3. Handbook Of Orthodontics Moyers
4. Orthodontics-Principles And Practice Graber
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (29 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

5. Design, Construction And use Of Removable

Orthodontic Appliances C. Philip Adams
6. Clinical Orthodontics: Vol 1 & 2 Salzmann
16. Oral and Maxillofacial Surgery
1. Impacted teeth; Alling John F & etal.
2. Principles of oral and maxillofacial
surgery: Vol 1, 2 & 3 Peterson LJ & etal.
3. Handbook of medical emergencies in the
dental office, Malamed SF.
4. Killeys Fractures of the mandible; Banks P.
5. Killeys Fractures of the middle 3rd of the
facial skeleton; Banks P.
6. Killey and Kays outline of oral surgery –
Part-1; Seward GR & etal
7. Essentials of safe dentistry for the
medically compromised patients; Mc Carthy FM
8. Extraction of teeth; Howe, GL
9. Minor Oral Surgery; Howe GL
17. Prosthodontics, Crown & Bridge
1. Syllabus of Complete denture by – Charles
M. Heartwell Jr. and Arthur O. Rahn.
2. Boucher’s “Prosthodontic treatment for
edentulous patients”
3. Essentials of complete denture
prosthodontics by – Sheldon Winkler
4. Maxillofacial prosthetics by – Willam R.
Lancy
5. McCraken’s Removable partial
prosthodontics
6. Removable partial prosthodontics by –
Ernest L. Miller and Joseph E. Granso
18. Periodontology
1. Glickman’s Clinical Periodontology-Carranza

REFERENCE BOOKS:
1. Essentials of Periodontology and Periodontics-
Torquil Macphee
2. Contemporary Periodontics-Cohen
3. Periodontal therapy-Goldman
4. Orbans’ Periodontics-Orban
5. Oral Health Survey-W.H.O.
6. Preventive Periodontics-Young and Stiffler
7. Public Health Dentistry- Slack
8. Advanced Periodontal Disease-John Prichard
9. Preventive Dentistry-Forrest
10. Clinical Periodontology-Jan Lindhe
11. Periodontics-Bear & Morris.
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (30 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

19. Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics

1. Esthetic guidelines for restorative
dentistry:Scharer & others
2. Esthetics of anterior fixed prosthodontics:
Chiche (GJ) 7 Pinault (Alain)
3. Esthetic & the treatment of facial form, Vol 28:
Mc Namara (JA)
20. Aesthetic Dentistry
1. Aesthetic guidelines for restorative
dentistry:Scharer & others
2. Aesthetics of anterior fixed prosthodontics:Chiche
(GJ) & Pinault (Alain)
3. Aesthetic & the treatment of facial form, Vol
28: Mc Namara (JA)
21. Forensic Odontology
1. Practical Forensic odontology-Derek Clark
22. Oral Implantology
1. Contemporary Implant Dentistry - Carl. E.
Misch Mosby 1993 First Edition.
2. Osscointegration and Occlusal Rehabilitation
Hobo S., Ichida. E. and Garcia L.T.
Quintessence Publishing Company, 1989 First
Edition.
23. Behavioral Science
1. General psychology-Hans Raj, Bhatia
2. Behavioral Sciences in Medical practice- Manju
Mehta
24. Ethics
1. Medical Ethics, Francis CM., I Ed. 1993, Jaypee
Brother, New Delhi p. 189.
Note 1. Books titles will keep on adding in view
of the latest advances in the Dental sciences .
2. Standard Books from Indian Authors are also
recommended.
List Of JOURNALS:
1. Journal of Dentistry
2. British Dental Journal
3. International Dental Journal
4. Dental Abstracts
5. Journal of American Dental Association
6. British Journal of Oral and Maxillofacial
Surgery
7. Oral Surgery, Oral Pathology and Oral
Medicine
8. Journal of Periodontolgy
9. Journal of Endodontics
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (31 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

10. American journal of Orthodontics and

Dentofacial Orthopedics
11. Journal of Prosthetic Dentistry
12. Journal of public Health Dentistry
13. Endodontics and Dental Traumatology
14. Journal of Dental Education
15. Dental Update
16. Journal of Dental Materiel
Note: This is the minimum requirement More
journals both Indian and Foreign are
recommended for imparting research oriented
education”

20. It is pertinent to note that the Court has interacted with

the experts from the expert committee formulated in pursuance to

the said recruitment and a few of the petitioners, who as per their

wisdom have exchanged the queries and rationale behind the said

disputed question-answers.

21. The petitioners have contested the following questions,

as against the answers furnished in the final answer key dated

06.08.2024 and have submitted that out of the 16 corrections. For

instance, some of the disputed questions are noted herein below,

however, it is made clear that the following are merely for

illustration purpose:-

1. Question ID 3008641279- What is the recommendation

for use of fluoride dentifrice in children aged 4-6 years:

(a) Twice daily with fluoride paste and once without

paste
(b) Thrice daily with fluoride paste
(c) Once daily with fluoride paste and twice without
paste
(d) Not recommended

Explanation:- The experts after evaluation of the said

question marked option No. (a) as the correct answer. To
substantiate the said answer the Expert Committee noted
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (32 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

that the candidates who have submitted that objection qua

the said questions have considered and relied upon certain
books and study material which are not approved by the
Dental Council of India (hereinafter referred to as ‘DCI’).
The reference is BDS course regulations available on the
official website of DCI wherein the subject of the question is
Pediatric Dentistry and book that is to be relied upon
Pediatric Dentistry. Further affirmation qua the same is also
attained from the context published in two books i.e. Shobha
Tandon Third Edition and McDonald and these two books
answer the said question as “twice daily with fluoride paste”.

2. Question ID 3008641293 – Which of the following

types is of fissures are most prone to caries:
(a) I type
(b) IK- type
(c) Inverted Y- type
(d) V- type

Explanation:- The experts after evaluation of the said

question marked option No. (c) as the correct answer. To
substantiate the said answer the Expert Committee noted
that the candidates who have submitted that objection qua
the said questions have considered and relied upon the book
titled as ‘Pediatric Dentistry Principles and Practice’ by Ms.
Muthu Chapter 21, howsoever, the said book is not approved
and recommended by DCI. Thence, the Expert Committee
had relied upon the book by Nikhil Marwah, 5 th Edition which
is the latest edition. It is pertinent to note that in the BDS
course regulation it is specifically noted under NOTE
2-’Standard books from Indian Authors are also
recommended’, keeping the said note in line, reliance is
placed on the said book which is written by an Indian Author.
The answer noted by the petitioners was IK- type fissures
“are suspect-able to caries” nevertheless in the question it
was asked “most prone to”. Therefore, it can be inferred
that there is a difference between the two. Under the book of
Nikhil Marwah it is categorically stated that the answer to the
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (33 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

said question is Inverted Y- type are most prone to caries.

Therefore, there is no ambiguity in the said answer.

22. Further, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the

respondents have submitted a list of books which are approved by

DCI. For the sake of convenience and brevity, the relied upon

books and the correct answers as tendered by the Expert

Committee are tabulated herein-below:

Rajasthan University Health Corr Correc Final No Text Book

Science ect t Correc Change
Ans Answe t /Chan
wer r as Answe ge
as per r Requir
per Expert ed
Ans
wer
Key
Question Number: 9 Question
ID: 3008641215 Question
Type : MCQ Option Shuffling :
Yes Correct Marks : 1 Wrong 3 1,2,4 1,2,4 Change Carranza’s
Marks : 0 Require 13th
d Editions
Radiographic signs of trauma from
occlusion include the following
1. Increased width of the
periodontal space
2. A vertical rather than horizontal
destruction of the interdental
septum
3. Periodontal pockets
4. Root resorption
Question Number : 17 Question
ID : 3008641223
Verruca vulgaris is caused by
1. Arena virus 2 None None Change
2. Paramyxovirus (Bonus (Bonus Require
for all) for all d
3. Rhabdovirus
4. Picornavirus
Question Number : 27 Question
ID : 3008641233
Intra-epidermal abscess is seen in
1. Hailey-Hailey Disease 2 None None Change
2. Pemphigus (Bonus (Bonus Require
for all) for all d
3. Lichen planus
4. Pemphigoid
Question Number : 39 Question
ID : 3008641245
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (34 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

All of the following structures

associated with pteryopalatinefossa,
except 2 2 2 No Gray’s 3rd
Change Ed.
1. Pteryopalatine ganglion
2. Mid third of maxillary artery
3. Maxillary nerve
4. Greater petrosal nerve
Question Number : 40 Question
ID : 3008641246
A 75 years old patient clutches
chest and fall down. A physician
arrives on the scene. What’s the
1 1 1 No Devidon
first thing to be done by physician:
Change 24th Ed.
1. Call for help
2. Check pulse
3. Chest Compression
4. Clear patent airway
Question Number : 49 Question
ID : 3008641255
Which of these is not a type of
Generalised Seizure:
2 2,4 2,4 Change Devidson
1. Tonic clonic Require
2. Myogenic d

3. Absence
4. Atonia
Question Number : 53 Question
ID : 3008641259
Thrombolytics can be given in
treatment of Acute MI, if patient
3 3 3 No Deidson
comes within:
Change 24th Edition
1. 3 hours
2. 6 hours
3. 12 hours
4. 24 hours
Question Number : 72 Question
ID : 3008641278
PerioCol-CG dimension
1. (4 x 5 x 0.25-0.34 mm) 3 3 3 No Carranza,
2. (4 x 5 x 0.25-0.31 mm) Change 13th Ed.
14th Edition
3. (4 x 5 x 0.25-0.32 mm)
4. (4 x 5 x 0.25-0.30 mm)
Question Number : 73 Question
ID : 3008641279
Which is the recommendation for
use of fluoride dentifrice in children
aged 4-6 years
2 3 3 Change Shobha
1. Not recommended Require Tandon,
2. Once daily with fluoride past and d Mc. Donald
twice without paste
3. Twice daily with fluoride paste
and once without paste
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (35 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

4. Thrice daily with fluoride paste

Question Number : 87 Question
ID : 3008641293
Which of the following types of
fissures are most prone to caries
2 2 2 No Nikhil
1. V type change Marwa
2. Inverted Y-type
3. IK-type
4. I type
Question Number : 88 Question
ID : 3008641294
Craniosynostosis, craniofacial
anomalies, syndactyly of hand and
feet, preaxial polysyndactyly, soft
1 1,3 1,3 Change Shafer’s
tissues syndactyly seen in:
Require Ed.
1. Carpenter syndrome d
2. Crouzon syndrome
3. Apert syndrome
4. Down syndrome
Question Number : 93 Question
ID : 3008641299
Cyst found within bone at the
junction of globular process, lateral
3 None None Change
nasal process and maxillary
(Bonus (Bonus Require
process:
for all) for all) d
1. Nasoalveolar cyst
2. Nasopalatine cyst
3. Globulomaxillary cyst
4. Median palatine cyst
Question Number : 95 Question
ID : 3008641301
In conscious sedation nitrous oxide
and oxygen is given at the ratio of
1 None None Change
1. 80:20 (Bonus (Bonus Require
2. 20:80 for all) for all) d

3. 60:40
4. 40:60
Question Number : 99 Question
ID : 3008641305
The primary denture support area
for a mandibular complete denture
is
2 2 2 No Boucher
1. The vestibule Change
2. The buccal shelf
3. The palatopharyngeal fold
4. The buccal and lingual slope of
residual ridge
Question Number: 100 Question
ID : 3008641306
Which impression technique is used
for a sharp mandibular ridge?
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (36 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

1. Minimum pressure impression

technique 1 2 2 Change Boucher
Require 13th Ed.
2. Selective pressure technique
d
3. Neutral zone impression
technique
4. Functional impression technique

23. In order to even acknowledge the scope of change in

the final answer key dated 06.08.2024, this Court after analyzing

the questions illustratively noted above, cannot help but highlight

the need to adopt an inferential process of reasoning, including

the comparative analysis and juxtaposition of various reports and

study material, to arrive at an objective decision. Having said that,

it is noted that the respondent-RUHS, pursuant to the receiving of

the objections against the model answer key, has exercised its

discretion, consulted with the experts and thereafter, effectuated

necessary changes, as is illustratively reflected by the questions

noted above. Therefore, no rare and exceptional case arises,

whereby this Court without adopting an inferential process of

reasoning or rather, a process of rationalization, permits scrutiny

of the final answer key dated 06.08.2024.

24. In this regard, it is noted that on the basis of the

reports of the Expert Committee and also, on the consideration of

the objections so received by the Expert Committee, the

respondent-RUHS finally adopted the experts report and deleted 4

questions (whereby, bonus marks were given to all candidates,

due to wrong framing of the following question ID nos. -

3008641299; 3008641301; 3008641223; 3008641233) in total

and changed the answer in 5 questions. Whereas, qua the

remaining questions against which the objections were received,

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (37 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

the original answers noted in the model answer key, were

maintained. Correspondingly, it is noted that this Court whilst

undertaking the exercise of judicial review, merely scrutinizes the

process in question - administrative or statutory, but necessarily

public in its outcome, to see if it was arrived at in a fair and

regular manner, free from illegality and not motivated by malice or

mala fides. The process and the impugned finding, ought not to be

so manifestly unreasonable in its conclusion, that no reasonable

individual placed in an akin situation would arrive at such a

conclusion.

25. However, in the foregoing facts and circumstances of

the matter in hand it can be inferred that the objections raised by

the petitioners/candidates against the model answer key were

duly taken note of the by the respondent-RUHS and thereafter, in

examining those objections, the Expert Committee duly analyzed

the merits and correctness of the objections and thereafter,

effectuated necessary changes in the final answer key dated

06.08.2024, wherever required, as is noted above. Therefore, no

procedural lapse occurred in carrying out the said exercise. In

such an event, any challenge raised to the correctness and/or

validity of the opinion of the experts, on the basis of which the

final answer key dated 06.08.2024 was amended. Consequentially,

this Court, is not inclined to tender interference in the instant

matter.

26. Therefore, as long as all the candidates who took the

said examination, are treated equally viz-a-viz the system of

evaluation in place, sans discrimination, then no grievance qua the

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (38 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

impugned examination subsists. It is well settled law that in

academic matters, the experts word is the last word. The court

neither has the requisite expertise nor infrastructure to go into the

correctness of such decisions. As a result, the court cannot sit in

judgment over those findings of experts and examine the material

on record and arrive at its own conclusions as a court of appeal. It

is also not possible in such circumstances to go on appointing

committees, especially when the experts have duly analyzed the

objections received from the candidates/petitioners and thereafter,

released the final answer key dated 06.08.2024. An unending

litigation for employment in public posts, in connection with which,

the career trajectory of so many young individuals is coherently

tied up with, cannot be permitted to be in abeyance for so long,

that the end result subsumes and overshadows the duress and

hardship faced by the litigants. Moreover, even as per the salutary

rule as endorsed in Sindhu B.S. Vs. Union Of India & Ors.

registered as WP (C) No. 21640/2023, the writ jurisdiction of

the Courts cannot be invoked to check correctness of ‘answer key’,

as it is purely an academic matter. The relevant extract from the

afore-cited ratio is reproduced herein below:

“3. The question regarding the correctness or

otherwise of an answer key is a purely
academic matter which is not an aspect that
can be reviewed in the exercise of the
extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This
Court had on the earlier occasion directed
consideration of the representation submitted by the
petitioner and others, and pursuant to the judgment
of this Court a committee of experts had been
appointed to go into the question. It is thereafter
that Ext. P1 report has been prepared. This
[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (39 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision

of the expert body (see the judgment in HP Public
Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Ors.
(2010) 6 SCC 759 and Ram Vijay Singh and Ors.
Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 857). It
is also settled law that the Court while exercising its
power of judicial review is concerned with the
decision-making process and not the decision as such
and a mere disagreement with the decision-making
process or the decision of the administrative
authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to
interfere. (See Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs.
Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. [(2016) 16 SCC
818], Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs. Port of
India [(1989) 3 SCC 293], Tata Cellular Vs.
Union of India [(1994) 6 SCC 651] and Jagdish
Mandal Vs. State of Orissa [(2007) 14 SCC
517].”
(Emphasis laid)

27. As a result, the answer key should be assumed to be

correct unless it is proved to be wrong, albeit the same should not

be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a

process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be

wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of

men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.

However, such was not the case in the facts and circumstances of

the present case, as demonstrated above. If it is a case of doubt,

unquestionably the answer-key must be preferred and only if it is

beyond the realm of doubt, the possibility of judicial review must

be entertained. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the

dictum of this Court, as previously enunciated in Surjan Lal

Dhawan (Supra). The view as noted above, has also been

reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments

namely Rahul Singh (Supra), Arun Kumar (Supra) and

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (40 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

Mukesh Thakur (Supra) and Tajvir Singh Sodhi (Supra) and

also, the Division Bench of this Court headed by the Hon’ble Chief

Justice Mr. M. M. Srivastava as enunciated in Kavita Bhargava

(Supra).

CONCLUSION

28. In summation of the aforementioned, it can be noted

that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments as cited

above has categorically opined that the Courts have limited

jurisdiction to exercise the powers enshrined under Article 226 of

the Constitution of India, and as per the Bhartiya Sakshya

Adhiniyam especially when the matters pertain to academic

matters wherein the experts’ word is the last word; that the court

neither has the requisite expertise nor infrastructure to go into the

correctness of such decisions; that the respondent-RUHS has duly

complied with and has followed the due process of conducting the

examination, requesting objections and tendering reasonable

justification qua the same; that the respondents in the

Information Booklet, 2024 for MODDRE, 2024 have categorically

stated the syllabus for the said examination wherein all the

subjects studied by the candidates during their BDS graduation

programme including the webinars, conferences, seminars,

articles and latest publications/editions of books & articles of

eminent national and international authors; that the respondent-

RUHS has tendered reasonable justification qua each disputed

question; that the experience of the experts cannot be

overlooked, hence, this Court is of the view that no judicial

intervention is warranted in the instant dispute.

[2024:RJ-JP:47575] (41 of 41) [CW-14832/2024]

29. Accordingly, the instant batch of petitions being devoid

of any merits, stand dismissed. No orders as to cost. Pending

applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

(SAMEER JAIN),J

Pooja/