No more internet gyan in exam evaluation: Rajasthan High Court raps PSC over using unreliable sources in ‘AI era’

“We strongly deprecate the practice of the experts relying upon newspaper articles like ‘Washington Post’ or ‘Hindustan Times’ in arriving at a conclusion of a question,” the court added.

Sharp criticism of expert methodology

A major highlight of the judgment was the court’s strong criticism of the methodology adopted by RPSC experts. It noted that the experts relied on unverified internet content and newspaper articles, rather than standard textbooks, and objections raised by candidates were often dismissed without detailed reasoning.

The Rajasthan High Court also said that the references used were not prescribed or widely accepted academic materials. It emphasised that in competitive examinations, especially those affecting large numbers of candidates, answers must be based on “celebrated books” recognised across universities and educational institutions.

“We also deprecate the practice of the expert to answer and reject the objections in one line and that too without assigning a convincing reason. The reference book must be a celebrated book and should be used across the universities and the colleges of the country without any objection,” the court added.

Answer key of senior teacher exam challenged

The observations came in the wake of a writ petition filed by Poonam Garg, who had appeared for the senior teacher (Sanskrit) recruitment examination conducted by the RPSC pursuant to an advertisement dated April 5, 2022.

The examination, carrying a total of 500 marks, consisted of two papers – General Knowledge (200 marks) and the subject paper (300 marks). After the results were declared, Garg challenged the final answer key dated February 29, 2024, alleging multiple discrepancies, including wrongful deletion of certain questions, incorrect answers, and inclusion of out-of-syllabus content.

She contended that proper evaluation based on authentic sources would have placed her within the selection zone, as she had secured 341.90 marks.

The court undertook a detailed analysis of disputed questions across both papers, examining the sources relied upon by the RPSC and those cited by the petitioner.

Questions wrongly deleted

The court found that question 3 and question 90 of paper I were wrongly deleted. In both instances, the answers were clearly supported by standard government publications and widely accepted academic books.

For instance, in question 3, relating to the location of Nagnachi Mata Temple, the court noted that authoritative sources placed the temple in Barmer district, making the correct option unambiguous. However, the experts had relied on an internet-based source suggesting an alternative location, leading to deletion of the question.

“The opinion of experts is not only against the history of Rajasthan, but contrary to the material published and recognized by the government,” the Rajasthan High Court remarked, while rejecting the expert’s reasoning.

Similarly, for question 90, relating to Ahar culture, the court held that the correct answer – “Red & Black Ware”—was clearly supported by standard texts, and there was no ambiguity warranting deletion.

Question that should have been deleted

On the other hand, the court found fault with the RPSC’s decision to retain question 30, which asked about the percentage of the world’s population living in the northern hemisphere.

While RPSC experts relied on newspaper articles to conclude the answer as 90 per cent, the petitioner cited a Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Class 12 Geography textbook stating the correct figure as 85 per cent. Since none of the options matched this, the court held that the question ought to have been deleted.

The court was particularly critical of the experts’ reliance on media articles, observing that such sources cannot substitute standard academic material.

Questions rightly deleted due to ambiguity

The Rajasthan High Court upheld the deletion of questions 26 and 95, noting that both suffered from ambiguity. In question 26, discrepancies between official publications regarding the number of years between ‘National Jamborees’ created confusion, justifying deletion.

Similarly, question 95 was found to have two correct answers based on the same authoritative source, making deletion appropriate.

The petitioner had also challenged question 84 of the Sanskrit paper as being out of the syllabus. However, the court rejected this contention, noting that expert review confirmed the topic was part of the prescribed curriculum at the graduation level.

Judicial restraint limits relief

Despite acknowledging errors in the evaluation process, the Rajasthan High Court ultimately refused to grant relief to the petitioner. It reiterated the settled principle that courts should not act as “super-examiners” or substitute expert opinion unless there is a glaring and demonstrable error.

The court also noted that the petitioner had failed to file objections at the stage of the model answer key, which significantly weakened her case.

Allowing re-evaluation at a later stage, the court said, would have “large-scale repercussions” on the entire selection process and affect numerous candidates.

Petition dismissed

In conclusion, while the Rajasthan High Court accepted that three questions in Paper I were wrongly assessed and that expert reliance on unreliable sources was problematic, it dismissed the writ petition.

“Though the petitioner has been able to establish that three questions…were wrongly assessed…she is not entitled for any relief…as the exercise would involve a large-scale repercussion on all candidates,” the court held.