Steno Result Revised After Software Error Upheld: Raj HC

Recruiter May Revise Exam Result Flawed by Software Error; Wrongly Selected Candidates Have No Right: Rajasthan High Court

Published: 13 October 2026 · NyayVidhan

A Rajasthan High Court Division Bench dismissed twelve writ petitions by Stenographer Grade-III candidates who lost their places when the High Court revised the 2021 shorthand-test results. A software error had awarded marks on the words typed instead of applying the prescribed formula, and correcting it was justified (paras 10-11, 13, 17). The first result created no right (para 15), and the formula, part of the method of evaluation, did not change the rules of the game (para 19).

Key holdings

Revising a result computed by faulty software without the prescribed formula was justified (paras 13, 17).

The rise in the margin of mistakes from 5% to 15% was decided before the first result and applied to all (para 10.1; Soni J., para 24).

A provisional selection without appointment or document verification creates no right (paras 14-15; Soni J., paras 9-10, 25).

Applying an evaluation formula in use before the advertisement is no mid-process change of rules (para 19; Soni J., paras 6, 13).

Deducting mistakes from the words dictated, not the words typed, raises marks, so a higher cut-off was natural (Soni J., paras 21-23).

Case explainer by NyayVidhan: an account of this judgment and the law it laid down, not the court's text. The judgment itself is the authoritative version.

Brief Facts

The High Court's advertisement of 18.01.2020 invited applications for Stenographer Grade-III (Hindi/English) posts in the District Courts, Legal Services Authorities and Permanent Lok Adalats; the shorthand and computer tests were held from 03.04.2021 to 08.04.2021 (para 8). Results of 30.06.2021 declared the petitioners provisionally qualified, and final results followed on 31.07.2021 (paras 8-8.1). After challenges by other candidates, the respondents cancelled both results on 28.10.2021 because the software agency had not deducted mistakes, and issued revised results in which around 350 earlier-selected candidates were not selected (para 2.3). Revised final results of 15.12.2021 led to appointments (para 9). The petitioners called the revision illegal, opaque and contrary to natural justice (paras 4-4.4).

Court's Findings

Bhati J. found that the prescribed formula (actual correct words = total dictated words minus actual committed mistakes) could not be applied in the first results because of a technical error in the evaluation software, which awarded marks on correct words typed (paras 10-11). A worked example showed that the earlier figures exceeded the 420 words dictated (paras 11.1-11.2). The increase in the margin of mistakes from 5% to 15% was decided before the first result and applied to all candidates (para 10.1). The formula was in use before and after this recruitment and is part of the method of evaluation, not of recruitment, so applying it without stating it in the advertisement did not change the rules of the game (paras 13, 18-19). No appointment or document verification followed the first result, and the appointees, working for over two years, were not parties; no right had accrued (paras 14-15). Selecting the meritorious protects rights under Articles 14 and 16 (para 16). Soni J., concurring, explained that deducting mistakes from the words dictated rather than the words typed raises marks, so the higher cut-off was natural (Soni J., paras 20-23).

Legal Principle

A recruiting authority may revise a result in which its evaluation software failed to apply the prescribed marking formula, applying the formula uniformly. Candidates selected under the erroneous result acquire no right to appointment, and applying an evaluation formula already in use does not change the rules of the game (paras 15-17, 19; Soni J., paras 8-10).

Precedents Relied Upon

Sachin Kumar & Ors. v. Delhi Subordinate Service Selection Board & Ors. (2021) 4 SCC 631
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.5, 20
Cited by the petitioners against the revision of the results; the Court held that the judgments cited for the petitioners did not assist them.
Tej Prakash Pathak & Ors. v. Rajasthan High Court & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2634/2013, decided on 20.03.2013
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.5, 20
Cited by the petitioners against the revision of the results; the Court held that the judgments cited for the petitioners did not assist them.
Krishna Rai (Dead) Through LRs & Ors. v. Banaras Hindu University Through Registrar & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 4578-4580/2022, decided on 16.06.2022
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.5, 20
Cited by the petitioners against the revision of the results; the Court held that the judgments cited for the petitioners did not assist them.

View all precedents (9)

Ramjit Singh Kardam & Ors. v. Sanjeev Kumar & Ors. AIR 2020 SC 2060
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.5, 20
Cited by the petitioners against the revision of the results; the Court held that the judgments cited for the petitioners did not assist them.
Raj Kumar & Ors. v. Shakti Raj & Ors. (1997) 9 SCC 527
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.5, 20
Cited by the petitioners against the revision of the results; the Court held that the judgments cited for the petitioners did not assist them.
Asha Kaul & Ors. v. State of Jammu and Kashmir & Ors. (1993) 2 SCC 573
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 4.5, 20
Cited by the petitioners against the revision of the results; the Court held that the judgments cited for the petitioners did not assist them.
Ashok Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors. (2017) 4 SCC 357
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5.7
Cited by the respondents in support of the revised results; not discussed further in the judgment.
Secy. (Health), Deptt. of Health and F.W. & Ors. v. Anita Puri & Ors. (1996) 6 SCC 282
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5.7
Cited by the respondents in support of the revised results; not discussed further in the judgment.
Prabodh Verma & Ors. v. State of UP & Ors. (1984) 4 SCC 251
Referred To Discussed at ¶ 5.7
Cited by the respondents in support of the revised results; not discussed further in the judgment.

Recruiter May Revise Exam Result Flawed by Software Error; Wrongly Selected Candidates Have No Right: Rajasthan High Court

Judgment Intelligence

Key holdings

Brief Facts

Court's Findings

Legal Principle

Precedents Relied Upon

Related Judgments

Investment in Separate Units Under Same Ownership Not Clubbed for MSME Concessional CST Rate: Rajasthan High Court

Failed Demand Verification, No Bribe Demand: Rajasthan High Court Quashes ACB FIR Against Two Bikaner Policemen

Excise-Duty Restrictions Do Not Bar CENVAT Credit of CVD on Imported Coal: Rajasthan High Court