Rajasthan HC Freezes Final Result in Assistant Professor Recruitment Over Ignored Answer Key Objections

The Rajasthan High Court at Jaipur has restrained the State from declaring the final result in Assistant Professor (English) recruitment after objections to the model answer key were allegedly overlooked before the final key was published.

Justice Ganesh Ram Meena, sitting singly at the Rajasthan High Court's Jaipur Bench, on 9 September 2026 issued notice on a writ petition challenging the conduct of the respondents in finalising an answer key for the Assistant Professor (English) written examination without considering the petitioner's objections. The court simultaneously granted a partial stay, permitting the selection process to continue but barring any declaration of the final result until further orders.

The Dispute Before the High Court

Sanjay Ashiya, son of Lun Singh, appeared in a written examination conducted for recruitment to the post of Assistant Professor (English). The respondents — the State of Rajasthan — published a model answer key on 31 December 2025. Ashiya filed written objections to that model key on 5 January 2026.

According to the petitioner, the respondents then published a final answer key and proceeded to conduct interviews of candidates without addressing or even considering those objections. Interviews were thus held on the basis of a final answer key whose correctness remained, in the petitioner's submission, unverified against his challenges.

The Legal Challenge

Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Ram Pratap Saini and Mr. Aamir Khan, argued before the court that advancing the recruitment process to the interview stage — and publishing a final answer key — without giving any consideration to timely written objections was arbitrary and illegal. No counsel appeared for the respondents at this stage.

The gravamen of the petition is that the opportunity to raise objections against a model answer key is rendered meaningless if those objections are set aside without application of mind before the key is finalised. The petitioner invoked the writ jurisdiction of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.

How the Bench Reasoned

Justice Meena found the submissions sufficient to warrant notice. The order does not record a final finding on the merits; at this interlocutory stage the court was satisfied that the petition raised questions that required a response from the State.

The bench fashioned a calibrated interim arrangement rather than halting the entire process. It allowed the respondents to proceed further with the selection — including, as the process then stood, any remaining steps — but drew a clear line at declaration of the final result. That restraint is directed at preserving the status quo on the most consequential act: announcing who has been selected.

Outcome

The High Court issued notice on the writ petition and the stay application, returnable within two weeks. In the interim, the respondents are permitted to continue with the selection process but are restrained from declaring the final result of selected candidates. The matter is listed before Justice Ganesh Ram Meena.