AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Hon’ble Mr. Manish Garg, Member (J)
By way of the present O.A. the applicant seeks the following reliefs:-
"a)Allow the present Original Application and quash the office order dated 30.08.2024 issued by the Respondent No. 2; and
b)Allow the present Original Application and quash the Press Note dated 22.06.2022 issued by the Respondent No. 2; and
c)Direct the Respondent No. 2 to form an independent expert committee to evaluate official answer key particularly answer no 88 and no 96 of Series C answer key and if found to be erroneous then allow the Applicant herein with a compensatory attempt to appear in UPSC Forest Service Examination 2024 Mains; and/or
d)Direct the Respondent No. 2 to form an independent expert committee to evaluate official answer key particularly answer no 88 and no 96 of Series C answer key and if found to be erroneous then quash the official answer key published by the Respondent No. 2 to the extent it is erroneous; and/or
e)Allow the present Original Application and direct the Respondent No. 2 to form an independent expert committee to evaluate official answer key particularly answer no 88 and no 96 of Series C answer key and if found to be erroneous then allow the Applicant herein with a compensatory attempt to appear in UPSC Forest Service Examination afresh; and/or
f)Allow the Applicant to appear in UPSC Forest Service Examination 2025 afresh by relaxing the conditions for age and attempt; and/or
g)Allow the present application and direct the Respondent No.2 to conduct re-examination for the Applicant; and/or
h)Issue any direction or order as deemed fit by this Hon’ble Tribunal in the facts and circumstances of the present case."
The present Original Application was earlier considered by this Tribunal and was dismissed vide order dated 12.12.2025. While doing so, the Tribunal had principally relied upon the decision of this Tribunal in Potale Sheetal Shivaji v. UPSC, OA No.3090/2023, which, in turn, had considered the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in UPPSC & Anr. v. Rahul Singh & Anr., Civil Appeal No.5839/2018. The Tribunal had also taken note of the fact that the questions and answer keys are subjected to scrutiny and re-validation by different sets of experts and, accordingly, held that the applicant had failed to make out a case warranting interference with the answer key.
The aforesaid order of the Tribunal was challenged by the applicant before the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Bisen Anshul Kumar v. Union of India & Anr., W.P.(C) No.7786/2026. Vide judgment dated 29.05.2026, the Hon’ble High Court set aside the order of this Tribunal and remanded the matter for fresh consideration. The relevant portion of the Hon’ble High Court’s order read as under:
“6.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.
7.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.
8.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.
9.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.
10.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.
11.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.”
The Hon’ble High Court, while remanding the matter, clarified that the grievance of the applicant was not with regard to re-evaluation of his answer script, but with regard to the correctness of the official answer key in respect of Question Nos. 88 and 96 of Series-C of General Studies Paper-I of the Indian Forest Service (Preliminary) Examination, 2022. The Hon’ble High Court further observed that although ordinarily the opinion of experts in such matters warrants due deference, judicial interference is permissible where the answer contained in the key is demonstrably unacceptable.
We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have carefully considered the pleadings and the material placed on record and re-examined the issue afresh uninfluenced by the observations made in earlier round of litigation.
The principal grievance of the applicant is that the official answer key in respect of Question Nos. 88 and 96 is erroneous and that, on account of the said erroneous answers, he was deprived of an opportunity to appear in the Indian Forest Service (Main) Examination and thus, ought to be allowed to sit in the subsequent examination.
It has been urged on behalf of the applicant that insofar as Question No. 88 is concerned, the official answer indicated by the Commission is Option-D, i.e. Statements 1, 2 and 3. The applicant has principally questioned Statement No. 2, namely, that mandamus will not lie against a company even though it may be a Government company. Reliance has been placed upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas & Ors., (2003) 10 SCC 733, to contend that a writ petition may, in appropriate circumstances, be maintainable against a company financed and owned by the State.
As regards Question No. 96, the official answer is Option-D, i.e. neither of the two statements is correct. The applicant has contended that Statement No. 1 is incorrect in view of the FDI policy applicable to foreign-owned e-commerce entities, but submits that Statement No. 2 is correct on account of the restriction that an e-commerce entity cannot permit more than 25% of sales through its marketplace from one vendor or its group companies. The contention, however, does not persuade us to hold that the answer key is demonstrably wrong. The restriction relied upon by the applicant relates to the quantum of sales which may be effected through a marketplace by a particular vendor or its group companies. Such restriction, by itself, cannot be equated with a statutory restriction upon the extent to which a foreign-owned e-commerce entity may “own” sellers on its platform, which is the subject matter of Statement No. 2. The applicant has, therefore, not been able to establish that Option-D is patently or demonstrably unacceptable.
Learned senior counsel for the applicant has placed considerable reliance upon the judgment of the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi in Staff Selection Commission & Anr. v. Shubham Pal & Ors, to contend that there is no absolute bar upon judicial scrutiny of an answer key and that, where the answer suggested by the examining authority is demonstrably incorrect, the Court can interfere notwithstanding the opinion of the subject experts. The said preposition cannot be a matter of dispute and matter of our guidance for just decision of the case.
In the written submissions, learned Senior Counsel for the applicant has further submitted that the respondents have not placed on record the report or reasons of the alleged re-validation by the subject experts and that the speaking order dated 30.08.2024 does not disclose the basis of such re-validation. Reliance has additionally been placed upon Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309, to contend that interference is warranted where an answer is demonstrably incorrect. It has further been submitted that, according to the applicant, the correct answers to Questions No.88 and 96 are Options (c) and (b) respectively and that correction of the said answers would enhance his score from 98.32 to 103.64 marks, against the OBC-NCL cut-off of 102.36 marks. Learned Senior Counsel has also relied upon Jaymin Mukeshbhai Patel v. Union Public Service Commission for moulding the relief by permitting a compensatory attempt in a subsequent examination without disturbing the concluded selection.
Recently, in Civil Appeal No(s).) of 2026, arising out of SLP(C) No(s). 21999/2024, Shubham Pal & Ors. v. Staff Selection Commission & Anr., decided on 03.02.2026, arising out of the impugned final judgment and order dated 27.05.2024 passed in LPA No. 202/2024 by the Hon’ble High Court of Delhi at New Delhi, it has been observed as under:
“ 12. Having given our thoughtful consideration to all the relevant aspects of the matter, we are of the view that we should not interfere in the matter. As held by this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), this Court also said that in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. In these types of cases sympathy or compassion have no role to play. Courts should be very loath in matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. ( emphasis laid)
13.In view of the aforesaid, the appeals preferred by Shubham Pal & Ors., and the connected appeal of Rakshit Kumar & Ors., (i.e. Civil Appeals @ SLP(C)Nos.21999/2024, 14 22002/2024) stand dismissed.
14.We have one another set of appeals @ SLP(C)Nos.1590- 1591/2025 before us filed at the instance of Staff Selection Commission & Ors. These appeals are directed against a finding recorded by the learned Single Judge as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court with respect to question ID264330171997. The findings recorded by the learned Single Judge, in this regard as contained in paras 32 and 34 respectively read thus:
“32.However, with respect to Question ID -264330171997 regarding how many meaningful English words can be formed from the specified 4 letters of the word "HOCKEY", the Tentative Answer Key referred to "One" as the answer. However, the Final Answer Key referred to "Two" as the answer. The Subject Matter Expert has reasoned that "Yoke" is one word and the other "okeydokey" and also referred to a Turkish card game called "Okey". This Court is unable to agree with the Experts on this question. What was asked was ''meaningful English words" as per the question. The word "okeydokey" appears in the Shorter Oxford English Dictionary (Sixth Edition), Volume - 2: N-Z, published by Oxford University Press, of the year 2007 and appears to be synonymous to the word "okay", but surely does not consist only of 4 letters of the word HOCKEY and the word "okey" read alone does not appear to be "meaningful". So far as the word "okey" stated to be a Turkish game is concerned, by no stretch of imagination, can the same be called a "meaningful word" of "English" language. Surely, the name of a game cannot be said to be a meaningful English word, particularly a Turkish 15 game. The game originally may be pronounced in such manner but has no relevance to the doubted question. Thus, it is clear that the Final Answer Key in respect of this question, is incorrect. This Court has ventured to examine this question as the alternate word appeared to be, on the face of it, incorrect. XXXXXXXXXXX
34.Resultantly, all the candidates who filled "one" (denoting one word) as the answer to Question ID — 264330171997 become eligible for additional marks and the respondents are directed accordingly and consequently, to publish the altered results.”
15.Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, applying the dicta in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and having visualized the consequences that may follow with the direction issued by the learned Single Judge as contained in para 34, we are of the view that we should allow the appeals preferred by the Staff Selection Commission.
16.In the result, the appeals preferred by the Staff Selection Commission stand allowed i.e. civil appeals @ SLP(C)Nos.1590-1591/2025. The relevant part of the direction issued by the learned Single Judge i.e. para 34 as affirmed by the Division Bench of the High Court is hereby set aside.
17.All pending applications including IA No. 171211/2025 (for impleadment in Civil Appeal @ SLP(C)No.21999/2024) shall stand disposed of.”
To dispel the doubt in the mind of the applicant that we have not looked into the aspect of correctness of questions and answer keys in dispute, we may say that in Shubham Pal (supra), the Apex Court, upon examining the specific question(s), the answer key and the material relied upon by the subject experts, found the suggested answer to be clearly and demonstrably incorrect, as the alternative relied upon by the experts could not, on the face of the question, qualify as a meaningful English word. In the present case, on the other hand, the objections raised by the applicant in respect of Question Nos.88 and 96 involve interpretation and application of legal and policy provisions, and the applicant has not been able to demonstrate that the answers adopted by the Commission are so patently erroneous that no reasonable body of persons well-versed in the subject could regard them as correct. The said judgment, therefore, does not advance the applicant’s case.
We have considered the submissions of the applicant in the light of the judgments relied upon by him. While the said judgments undoubtedly recognize circumstances in which judicial scrutiny of an answer key may be warranted, the interpretation canvassed by the applicant, in the facts and circumstances of the present case, does not conclusively establish that the answers adopted by the Commission are wholly unacceptable so as to warrant judicial interference.
It is also relevant that, as stated by the respondents, the objections raised by the applicant in respect of both the aforesaid questions were considered and the answer keys were re validated by the subject experts. The experts, upon such consideration, found the answers originally provided by the paper setters to be correct and no modification was recommended.
We are conscious of the observation of the Hon’ble High Court that the mere fact that an answer has been examined by experts does not completely bar judicial scrutiny. We have, therefore, independently considered the objections raised by the applicant. However, judicial review in such matters is attracted only where the answer is demonstrably incorrect or wholly unacceptable. A mere possibility of another interpretation, or the existence of an arguable alternative answer, would not justify substitution of the Court’s view for that of the subject experts. We find that the applicant has failed to cross the threshold of demonstrating patent error in the official answer key.
The applicant has also relied upon the fact that, in an earlier examination, certain candidates were permitted to appear in a re-examination and has sought a compensatory attempt. Such past instance, by itself, cannot confer an enforceable right upon the applicant, particularly when no demonstrable error in the answer key in the present examination has been established. More so, allowing participation in subsequent examination(s) at this stage will open a Pandora Box of litigation.
In view of the foregoing discussions, and having considered the matter afresh, we are of the considered view that the applicant has failed to establish that the answers to Question Nos. 88 and 96 are demonstrably incorrect. Consequently, no ground is made out for interference with the official answer key or the speaking order dated 30.08.2024.
The Original Application is accordingly dismissed with observations that respondents ought to be more sensitivity in selecting the paper setters in examination of such a magnitude as a model employer.
Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.