| 1 | 12/07/2024 | SBCWP No. 17538/16 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Chandra Shekhar Sharma v/s State and Ors | Scaling | The equipercentile method was adopted and given sanction to by the respondent-RPSC only in an extraordinary situation, which could not be foreseen at the time of the issuance of the advertisement. | |
| 2 | 22/03/2024 | SBCWP No. 18130/23 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Prema Ram Patel & Ors v/s State & Ors | Answer Key | There is a limited scope of Judicial Review in matters of examination for recruitment in public services. This should be exercised only when there is palpable and demonstrated error. The answer Key should be assumed to be correct unlees it is proved to be wrong and must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong. | |
| 3 | 14/12/2023 | SBCWP No 1044/20 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Aditya Singh v/s RPSC & Ors | Result declared according to aggregate 40% minimum | Petitioner is estopped from challenging the scheme of examination and the terms and conditions of the advertisement after having participated in the examination. | |
| 4 | 12/12/2023 | SBCWP no. 15251/19 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Babulal Sahu v/s State & Ors | Reservation Policy for Person with Disability (PWD | Petitioner is estopped from challenging the scheme of examination and the terms and conditions of the advertisement after having participated in the examination. | |
| 5 | 13/09/2023 | SBCWP No. 7594/18 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | Naresh Kumar v/s State & Ors | Cut off date for requisite qualification | It is well within the domain of the employer to fix a cut off date for candidates to acquire education qualification to be eligible for participating in the recruitment process. | |
| 6 | 12/09/2023 | SBCWP no. 1785/21 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | Ambika Nehra v/s State & Ors | Answer key/Evaluation of questions & Answers | Petitioners challenged the answer key published by the RPSC. Since, three consecutive committees of the experts had examined almost all questions, the Court does not feel to interfere in the matter.(in the light of judgment of Vikesh Kumar Gupta) | |
| 7 | 04/09/2023 | SBCWP No. 5516/19 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | Nand Kishore Chouhan v/s State & Ors | Experience regarding NGE | Non Gazzeted employees and Departmental candidates are two different categories. | |
| 8 | 29/08/2023 | SBCWP no. 6603/15 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | Gaurav Sharma v/s State & Ors | Category Change | The eligibility or candidature of a candidate has to be seen on the date of submitting the application form. | |
| 9 | 28/08/2023 | SBCWP no. 1437/16 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | Bharat Nath Yogi v/s State & Ors | Scaling | There is no illegality or irregularity in Commission’s approach in adopting process of normalisation. | |
| 10 | 25/08/2023 | SBCWP no. 7978/22 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Rajendra Kumar Sharma & Anr v/s State & Ors | Operation of reserve list | The lifespan of reserve list subsists for a period of six months from the date, on which, the original list is forwarded by the Commission to the State/appointing authority. | |
| 11 | 25/08/2023 | SBCWP No. 4777/21 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Surjan Lal Dhawan & Ors v/s State & Ors | Answer Key | Opinion of Experts can not be interfered by the Court. The answer Key should be assumed to be correct unlees it is proved to be wrong and must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong. | |
| 12 | 23/08/2023 | SBCWP No. 5773/23 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Kuldeep Singh & Anr v/s State & Ors | Cut off date for requisite qualification | The petitioner's candidature not be treated as eligible as he was not acquiring the requisite educational qualification before or upto the cut off date, as fixed by the RPSC in advertisement. | |
| 13 | 16/08/2023 | SBCWP No. 2735/13 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Rohit Kaushik v/s State & Ors | Age Relaxation | The benefit of age relaxation cannot be claimed as a matter of right. | |
| 14 | 10/08/2023 | SAW 1340/22 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Sanju Jainth v/s RPSC | Category change (SC/WE to SC/WE/DV) | Once a candidate has filled form in a perticular category, he/she is not entitled to change the same. Category change can be permitted in those cases where the category sought to be changed has been aquired subsequently. | |
| 15 | 04/08/2023 | SAW 252/21 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Mahipal Singh & Ors v/s State & Ors | Answer Key | Expert committee has examined the matter then nothing is left out for interfence of the Court. | |
| 16 | 19/07/2023 | SAW 1064/22 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Mahesh Kumar v/s State & Ors | Questions out of syllabus | Once experts have assessed the questions, Court can not sit to reassess the same. | |
| 17 | 10/11/2022 | SAW 72/22 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | RPSC v/s Sangeeta Varhat | Requirement to have divorce decree for claiming re | Decree of divorce is a must for claiming reservation in recruitment, even in case of customary divorce amongst the members of Scheduled Tribe/Tribal Sub Plan Communities. A custom cannot to be allowed to supersede the terms and conditions governing the recruitment process. | |
| 18 | 28/07/2022 | SBCWP No. 9139/22 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Chain Singh Gurjar & Ors v/s RPSC | Accept offline application form | No relief can be granted to a person who was negligent and did not fill the form in the prescribed/stipulated period. No illegality has been committed by the Commission in not extending the date for submitting the online application form. | |
| 19 | 12/04/2022 | SBCWP no. 4551/21 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Aditi Dadhich v/s State & Ors | Educational Qualification till last cut off date | A Candidate must possess the requisite qualification as on the cut off date mentioned in the advertisement. | |
| 20 | 01/11/2021 | 106665/2021 (Raj. State Information Commission) | Bhivaram Meena v/s State Public Information Officer and RPSC | Expert Opinion | The Experts Opinion Cannot be disclosed under the RTI Act | |
| 21 | 19/03/2021 | SAW 804/20 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | RPSC v/s Yogita Yaduvanshi | Category change correction in online application f | The online corrections could be made in the application form within the stipulated period, which is provided by the RPSC and not after that. | |
| 22 | 02/03/2021 | SAW 103/21 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | RPSC v/s Kavita Godara & Ors | Fixation of the number of candidates called for in | The wisdom of Commission in calling the successful candidates for interview by fixing their number categorywise cannot be said to be illegal or unjustified and it is not in the domain of the Court to fix the number of candidates required to be called for interview. | |
| 23 | 07/12/2020 | Civil Appeal No. 3649/20 (Sup. Court, New Delhi) | Vikesh Kumar Gupta v/s State of Rajasthan | Answer Key | It was held that Courts ought not interfere with the examination process as the Courts cannot be said to be expert body. Assessment of the questions by the Court itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. | |
| 24 | 29/01/2020 | SBCWP no. 14302/17 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Mamta Sharma v/s RPSC & Anr | Reevaluation of Answer Scripts | Courts cannot examine the question paper and answer sheets as it does not have expertise to do so and the Rules also prohibit re-examination of the answer sheets. | |
| 25 | 12/07/2019 | DBCWP No. 7840/19 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | Sonal Tyagi v/s State & Ors | Category Change | If Category be allowed to change after declaration of result, then the persons who have availed reservation in that category may be ousted from the merit list and their interest may be prejudiced, so it is not allowed. | |
| 26 | 22/04/2019 | SAW 993/18 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | Shyam Sunder v/s State & Ors | Reevaluation | Evaluation and deciphering answer to a subjective question always varies evaluator to evaluator and it cannot be alleged that the same shall remained static. It would neither be permissible nor just and proper to interfere and reevaluate the answer scripts. | |
| 27 | 10/04/2018 | SAW 198/18 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | Piyush Kaviya & Ors v/s RPSC & Ors | Category Change consider in NGE | Candidate cannot be allowed to change category after admit cards has been issued. | |
| 28 | 20/02/2018 | Civil Appeal No. 6159-6162/2013 (S.C. New Delhi) | UPSC v/s Angesh Kumar and Ors | Non disclosure of Experts/Examiners identity | Possibility of the Examiner identity getting revealed in such a high-stakes examination would have serious implications, both for the integrity and fairness of the examination system and for the security and safety of the examiner. | |
| 29 | 03/11/2017 | SAW 1693/17 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | RPSC v/s Anil Kumar & Ors | Cut off date for requisite qualification | A person taking to examination conducted by the Commission should have appeared or should be appearing in the final year examination of the course which is requisite educational qualification is that by the time the Commission conducts the examination. | |
| 30 | 04/08/2017 | SBCWP No. 7212/17 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | Pritam Kunwar v/s State and Ors | Category Change | Permitting change of category after the last date for submission of applications would make the selections an unending process. | |
| 31 | 08/05/2017 | SAW 697/19 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | RPSC v/s Pankaj Raj & Ors | Answer Key | The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scruitinize the answer sheets of a candidate, it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are based left to academics. | |
| 32 | 08/02/2017 | SBCWP No. 7673/16 (Raj. High Court, Jodhpur) | Satish Kumar Sharma v/s RPSC | Change of Category | Candidates cannot be allowed to change category after declaration of result. A candidate having appeared and participated in the selection process cannot turn around and challenge the same after he was declared unsucsessful. | |
| 33 | 19/05/2016 | SBCWP No. 12836/14 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Shweta Khaiwal v/s State & Ors | Educational Qualification upto cut off date | The petitioners were not in possession of the required essential qualifications in terms of the advertisement before the cut off date. Hence are not eligible to be considered. | |
| 34 | 22/12/2015 | CIC/CC/A/2014/002971/SB (CIC, New Delhi) | Sanjay Verma v/s Central Public Information Officer | Non disclosure of Experts/Examiners identity | The information sought is personal information related to a third party, the disclosure of which has no any public activity or interest. Hence, the disclosure of such information is exempted under Section 8(1)(j) of the RTI Act. | |
| 35 | 15/05/2014 | SBCWP no. 2032/14 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Mukesh Kumari v/s RPSC | To show answer booklet of main exam | The scheme of examination consist of two phases, preliminary and main examination. Main examination comprises of both written examination as well as personality and viva-voce xamination. Unless all these stage are over, the process of examination cannot to be said to be complete and disclosure of information (answer booklet) is not permissible, the petitioner can request after the declaration of final result is over. | |
| 36 | 08/07/2013 | DBCWP no. 11708/13 (Raj. High Court, Jaipur) | Shanu Goyal v/s State & Ors | Disclosure of information under RTI | Disclosure of information under RTI when the recruitment process is ongoing would undermine confidentiality. Hence, information can not be given when the process is still ongoing. | |
| 37 | 20/02/2013 | SLP 11977-11978/2012(Supreme Court, New Delhi) | Prashant Ramesh Chakkarwar | Non disclosure of Experts/Examiners identity | Possibility of the Examiner identity getting revealed in such a high-stakes examination would have serious implications-both for the integrity and fairness of the Examination system and for the security and safety of the Examiner. | |
| 38 | 13/12/2012 | Civil Appeal No. 9052/12 (Supreme Court, New Delhi | Bihar Public Service Commission v/s Sayyed Hussain Abbas Rizwi and Ors | Non disclosure of Experts/Examiners identity | The disclosure of names and addresses of the members of the Interview Board would ex facie endanger their lives or physical safety. The possibility of a failed candidate attempting to take revenge from such persons cannot be ruled out. The Commission is not bound to disclose the information. | |
| 39 | 06/08/2004 | Civil Appeal No. 5046/04(Supreme Court,New Delhi) | Pramod Kumar Srivastava v/s Bihar Public Service Commission | Reevaluation of answer sheet | In the absence of any Provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. | |
