AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
C. Hari Shankar, J.
The petitioner, who is a candidate belonging to the OBC1 Non-Creamy Layer, attempted the UPSC Forest Service Examination, 2022. He did not clear the examination. He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal2 alleging that the suggested answers to Questions 88 and 96 of the General Studies Paper-I, as contained in the official answer key, were incorrect.
For the sake of the record, we may reproduce the said questions and the suggested answers as under:
| Question | Official Answer Key | Applicant’s answer | Explanation & Correct answer |
88. With reference to writs issued by the Courts in India, consider the following statements: 1. Mandamus will not lie against a private organisation unless it is entrusted with a public duty. 2. Mandamus will not lie against a Company even though it may be a Government Company. 3. Any public minded person can be a Applicant to move the Court to obtain the writ of Quo Warranto. Which of the statements given above are correct? (a) 1 and 2 only (b) 2 and 3 only (c) 1 and 3 only (d) 1,2 and 3 | D | C | The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. vs Sagar Thomas and Ors. reported in (2003) 10 SCC 733 held that as under: “18. From the decisions referred to above, the position that emerges is that a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India may be maintainable against (i) the State (Government); (ii) an authority; (iii) a statutory body; (iv) an instrumentality or agency of the State; (v) a company which is financed and owned by the State; (vi) a private body run substantially on State funding; (vii) a private body discharging public duty or positive obligation of public nature; and (viii) a person or a body under liability to discharge any function under any statute, to compel it to perform such a statutory function.” That a bare perusal of aforementioned paragraph makes it clear that a company which is financed and owned by the State is amenable to the writ jurisdiction and therefore, in view of the ruling of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, therefore the correct answer to the question is option C. |
| 96. With refence to foreign-owned e- | D | B | That the Foreign Direct investment policy of India |
commerce firms prohibits retail trading in any operating in India, form through ecommerce for the which, of the companies with FDI engaging following statements in the activities of multi-brand is/are correct? retail trading. Multi-brand retail
They can. sell trading means selling different their own goods in products of various brands addition to offering through one platform. India has their platforms as not allowed FDI in inventory-market-places. driven models of e-commerce.
The degree to The inventory model, which which they can own Walmart and Amazon use in the big sellers on their United States, is where the platforms is limited. goods and services are owned Select the correct by an e-commerce firm that answer using the sells directly to retail customers. code given below: The restriction is aimed largely (a) 1 only at protecting India's vast (b) 2 only unorganized retail sector that (c) Both 1 and 2 does not have the clout to (d) Neither 1 nor 2 purchase at scale and offer big discounts. Further, the Consumer Protection (E-Commerce) Rules, 2020 defines “ecommerce” entity as:
“3.Definitions-“e-commerce entity” means any person who owns, operates or manages digital or electronic facility or platform for electronic commerce, but does not include a seller offering his goods or services for sale on a marketplace ecommerce entity” That the aforementioned further clarifies that ecommerce entity does not include a seller offering his good or services for sale. Hence, option 1 is incorrect which rules out options (a) & (c) of the concerned answer. Further, as per the amended FDI Policy in ecommerce marketplaces in 2018 to classify any vendor accounting for more than 25% of the platform’s total sales as “controlled” by the marketplace operator. Further, as per Press Note No. 3 (2016 series) dated 29.03.2016 issued by the Ministry of Commerce & Industry, Department of Industrial Policy & Promotion it was ascertained that an e-commerce entity will not permit more than 25% of the sales affected through its marketplace from one vendor or their group companies. So, no seller must exceed 25 per cent of the total business on any foreign e-commerce platform. Therefore, Statement 2 is correct with leaves with the final answer as option B.
The petitioner’s case was that, while the suggested answer key suggested option (d) for question 88, the correct option was option (c) and while the suggested answer key suggested option (d) for question 96, the correct answer, according to the petitioner was option (b).
It is settled law that there is no absolute bar on a Court examining such a contention and that, if the suggested answers as per the suggested answer keys are patently incorrect, the Court can interfere.
We do not wish to express any opinion on the correctness of the suggested answers as the Tribunal has not addressed this issue and has merely dismissed the petition following its own earlier decision in OA 3090/20233 and the decisions of the Supreme Court which hold that there is no absolute right to re-evaluation of examination papers.
In our view, the Tribunal has erred in its approach. The petitioner was not seeking re-evaluation of examination papers. The petitioner was questioning the correctness of the suggested answers in the model answer key released by the authorities conducting the examination.
This Court has, in its judgment in Staff Selection Commission v. Shubham Pal & Ors4 examined the entire case law on this aspect and held that there is no absolute bar to entertain such a challenge. Of course, where the matter is arguable, or where the suggested answer in the answer key is even a plausible answer, the Court would not interfere. Where, however, the answer is demonstrably unacceptable, the Court would definitely interfere ex debito justitiae.
As the Court has not examined the challenge by the petitioner on merits, with consent of learned Counsel for the parties, we set aside the impugned order dated 12 December 2025 and remit OA 4567/2024 to the Tribunal for consideration afresh.
As this involves the candidature of a candidate for entry into the Indian Forest Service and the issue is short, we request the Tribunal to take up this matter on the next date of hearing finally and to take a view thereon as expeditiously as possible.
To expedite matters, we direct the parties to appear before the Tribunal on 6 July 2026. Neither side would be entitled to seek any adjournment on the said date.
The writ petition is disposed of in the aforesaid terms without expressing any categorical opinion on the merits of the challenges raised by the petitioner.