The results of the Assistant Prosecution Officer recruitment examination in Rajasthan have triggered a major controversy. Aspirants were left shocked and disheartened when only four candidates were declared successful, rendering the efforts of thousands meaningless. What was expected to be a routine recruitment outcome has now turned into a statewide debate, raising serious questions about fairness and transparency. Many candidates claim the outcome defies logic and merit. With disappointment turning into anger, the issue has now reached the courts, where affected aspirants are seeking judicial intervention and relief, hoping their grievances will finally be heard and addressed.
The recruitment process was conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission for a total of 181 vacancies. The examination was held in two stages. After clearing the preliminary test, around 2,700 candidates qualified to appear for the main examination. This main exam was conducted on June 1. It consisted of two separate papers designed to assess different competencies. The first paper focused on law subjects and carried a total of 300 marks, making it the most crucial component of the selection process.
The second paper tested candidates’ proficiency in Hindi and English and was allotted 100 marks. According to the official recruitment rules, candidates were required to secure at least 40 percent marks in each paper to qualify. The commission stated that the majority of candidates failed to meet this minimum requirement. As a result, out of nearly 2,700 candidates who appeared for the main examination, 2,696 were declared unsuccessful, leading to widespread disbelief and dissatisfaction among aspirants and observers alike.
The controversy intensified after the results were officially announced on December 10, 2025. Candidates were stunned by the unusually low success rate and began questioning whether the evaluation process had been conducted fairly. Many raised doubts about the marking standards and demanded clarity. The situation worsened when the commission failed to make public any detailed or transparent evaluation policy. This lack of disclosure deepened suspicion and fueled allegations of arbitrariness, prompting candidates to collectively voice their concerns across platforms and forums.
In response, aggrieved candidates have approached the Rajasthan High Court, filing a petition through advocate Tanveer Ahmed. The plea argues that the results are unreasonable, arbitrary, and impractical, and that they violate fundamental rights guaranteed under the Constitution. The petitioners have sought an immediate stay on the results, cancellation of the entire outcome, and a declaration that the evaluation process was unlawful. They are also demanding a fresh evaluation of answer sheets, urging the court to intervene and ensure accountability and transparency.