Judgment Intelligence
Petition Dismissed- Court
- Rajasthan High Court
- Date of Decision
- 4 April 2026
- Bench
- Acting Chief Justice Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Justice Sangeeta Sharma
- Relevant Acts & Sections
- Constitution of India — Articles 14, 16, 226, 315, 320; Rajasthan Police Subordinate Service Rules, 1989; Rajasthan Public Examination (Measures for Prevention of Unfair Means in Recruitment) Act, 2022 — Section 8
All 17 special appeals dismissed. The Single Judge's judgment of 28.08.2025 is upheld as to cancelling the examination and its directions, which must now be implemented (para 117). The suo motu PIL was dismissed (para 118), and candidates must be given age relaxation (para 119).
Key holdings
- Non-disclosure of an earlier petition withdrawn without liberty is not fatal unless it is material to the dispute (paras 85-86).
- Systemic leaks, insider involvement and the impossibility of segregation justify cancelling the whole examination (paras 104-108).
- Clearing the physical test and interview does not protect candidates selected on a compromised written examination (paras 109-110).
- RPSC members were not entitled to a hearing before adverse observations; the Bench urged the Legislature to set criteria for selecting Commission members (paras 112-116).
- A PIL does not lie in service matters, so the suo motu PIL registered on the Single Judge’s direction was dismissed (para 118).
Brief Facts
Court's Findings
Legal Principle
Precedents Relied Upon
- Vanshika Yadav v. Union of India (2024) 10 SCC 641
Before ordering a re-test, the court asks whether the breach was systemic, whether it affected the integrity of the whole examination and whether beneficiaries can be segregated; once shared on social media, a leak is exceedingly difficult to trace.
- State of West Bengal v. Baishakhi Bhattacharya (Chatterjee) & Ors. 2025 SCC OnLine SC 719
Where systemic irregularities undermine the whole selection, it should be cancelled in its entirety; reasonable certainty of systemic malaise suffices, and purity of the selection process is paramount.
- Tanvi Sarwal v. CBSE (2015) 6 SCC 573
Withholding results only of identified beneficiaries is no solution where the process itself is vitiated, given the lurking possibility of unidentified beneficiaries.
View all precedents (11)
- State (NCT of Delhi) v. BSK Realtors LLP (2024) 7 SCC 370
Suppression of facts is fatal only if material, that is, if it would render the decision unjust or distort the decision-making process.
- Yashwant Sinha & Ors. v. Central Bureau of Investigation (2019) 6 SCC 1
Relevant documents are not shut out of judicial consideration merely because of the manner in which they were procured.
- Singrauli Super Thermal Power Station v. Ashwani Kumar Dubey (2023) 8 SCC 35
An expert committee report only assists the adjudicator; it cannot by itself be made the basis of directions.
- K.D. Sharma v. Steel Authority of India Ltd. & Ors. (2008) 12 SCC 481
Cited by the Advocate General: a writ petitioner must come with clean hands and may be thrown out for suppressing material facts.
- Daryao v. State of U.P. AIR 1961 SC 1457
Cited by the respondents: dismissal of a writ petition as withdrawn, without a decision on merits, does not bar a later petition as res judicata.
- Joginder Pal & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors. (2014) 6 SCC 644
Cited by the appellants for protecting untainted candidates once the State itself chose to continue them.
- State of Assam & Ors. v. Arabinda Rabha & Ors. Civil Appeal No. 2350/2025
Cited by the appellants: cancelling an entire selection despite the possibility of segregation can be disproportionate and irrational.
- Dattaraj Nathuji Thaware v. State of Maharashtra AIR 2005 SC 540
Cited by the Advocate General: a PIL is not maintainable in service matters.
