AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
JASMEET SINGH, J (ORAL)
These are writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India challenging certain discrepancies in the provisional and final answer keys published by the respondents in the UGC-NET June 2026.
Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/NTA, has handed over counter affidavits in all the petitions which are taken on record.
In the entire batch, the following questions are challenged:-
| Challenged Qn. ID | Answer Petitioners | Provisional Answer Key | Challenged window | Final Answer Key | Petitioner’s Contention | Reply in Counter | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| W.P(C)-13806/2026 NASIR RASHEED V UGC & ANR. Education-009 | 4818042982 | 48180411624 (Option 4) | 48180411624 (Option 4) | Not Challenged | 48180411624 (Option 2) | Option 4 correct Centres of Education | Subject Expert (p.8) |
| 4818042974 | 48180411592 (Option 4) | 48180411589 (Option 1) | Not Challenged | 48180411589 (Option 1) | Option 4 correct Rousseau Philosophy | Subject Expert No challenge in window (p.4, 5) | |
| 4818042904 | 48180411310 (Option 2) | 48180411310 (Option 2) | Not Challenged | 48180411311 (Option 3) | Option 2 correct Stratified random sample | Subject Expert (p.7,8) | |
| W.P(C)-14331/2026 SAPNA & ORS. V UGC & ANR. Education-009 | 4818042904 | 48180411310 (Option 2) | 48180411310 (Option 2) | Not Challenged | 48180411311 (Option 3) | Option 2 correct Stratified random sample | Subject Expert (p.7,10) |
| 4818042982 | 48180411624 (Option 4) | 48180411624 (Option 4) | Not Challenged | 48180411624 (Option 2) | Option 4 correct Centres of Education | Subject Expert (p.7,10) | |
| W.P.(C)-14352/2026 | Qn ID 4818042904 | Option 2 48180411310 | Option 2 | Not challenged | Option 3 48180411311 | Option 2 correct Stratified sample | Subject expert (p.10) |
| KANGKANA BASUMATARY V/s UGC & ANR Education-009 | Qn ID 4818042982 | Option 4 48180411624 | Option 4 | Not challenged | Option 2 48180411622 | Option 4 correct Centres of Education | Subject expert (p.10) |
| Qn ID 4818042962 | Option 2 48180411542 | Option 2 | Not challenged | Option 3 48180411543 | Option 2 correct BuddhistEdu Centre | Key Not changed. Subject experts (p.10) | |
| Qn ID 4818042871 | Option 3 48180411183 | Option 2 | Not Challenged | Option 2 | Math Qn wrong and erroneous | Subject expert (p.8) | |
| W.P.(C)-14324/2026 ASHFAQUE ALAM V/s UGC & ANR Urdu-028 | Question ID 4818048438 | Option 3, ID 48180432855 | Option 3, ID 48180432855 | Not challenged | Option 2, ID 48180432854 (Revised) | Option 3 is right | Human error in Prov. Key (Annex-9, p38) |
| Question ID 4818048369 | Option 3, ID 48180432583 | Option 2, ID 48180432582 | Not challenged | Option 2, ID 48180432582 | Math Question, wrong Qn challenge | ||
| W.P.(C)-14324/2026 ABHINAV YADAV & ORS. V UGC Geography–080 | Qn ID 4818041051 | Option 2 | Challenged only by Abhinav | Option 2 | None of the options correct | Subject Expert (p.9,11,13) | |
| Qn ID 4818041048 | Option 2 | Not Challenged | Option 1 (Revised) | None of the options correct | Portal claim- Opt 1, Writ claim-NOTA Estopped (p.5) | ||
| Qn ID 481804963 | Option 3 | Challenged only by Abhinav | Option 3 | None of the options correct | Subject Expert (p.9,11,13) | ||
| Qn ID 481804978 | Option 3 | Challenged only by Abhinav | Option 3 | Lava plateau, all option are correct | Expert Opinion A-11 ‘Can retain option 3’ |
The law in writ jurisdictions with regard to the Court’s interference with the opinion of the expert is well settled. The Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court in LPA 782/2024 titled Nandita v. National Testing Agency & Ors. vide Order dated 13.08.2024, held as under:-
“8.While examining such matters, the jurisdiction of this Court is circumscribed by the law which is well-settled in this regard, in a catena of pronouncements by the Supreme Court. It is a well-settled position of law that the scope of judicial adjudication and jurisdiction in such matters is limited. The Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309 has held that “…the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct.
9.In the present case, NTA had both the issues examined by subject experts consequent to the receipt of objections. This Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of the experts regarding the correct answers to the questions. Further, just because NTA has consulted experts does not mean that the said experts cease to be neutral or independent persons.”
As regards Question ID Nos. 4818042974, 4818042904, 4818048369, 4818041051, 4818041048 and 481804963, the dispute is one of academic opinion and are inferential in nature. The respondents have stated in their counter affidavits that these questions were examined by subject experts. No patent error has been shown in respect of them. In exercise of its writ jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the view of the experts or substitute its own, and no interference is called for with these questions.
However, there are four questions which seem to be patently erroneous and are not inferential in nature. The same read as under:-
Q.78 These were the centers of Education during Buddhist period :
- A. Nadia
- B. Odantpuri
- C. Ballabhi
- D. Vikramshila
- E. Varanasi
Choose the correct answer from the options given below:
(1)A, B, C only
(2)C, D, E only
(3)A, B, C, D only
(4)A, C, D, E only
Options 1. 1
2.2
3.3
4.4
Question Type : MCQ
Question ID : 4818042962 Option 1 ID : 48180411541 Option 2 ID : 48180411542 Option 3 ID : 48180411543 Option 4 ID : 48180411544 Status : Answered
Chosen Option : 2
Q.75 سر سید احمد خان نے جس زمانے میں ایم اے او کا انچ قائم کیا اس وقت وہ کس شہر میں تعینات تھے؟
1.غازی پور
2.علی گڑھ
3.بنارس
4.میرٹھ
Options 1. 1
2.2
3.3
4.4
Question Type : MCQ
Question ID : 4818048438 Option 1 ID : 48180432853 Option 2 ID : 48180432854 Option 3 ID : 48180432855 Option 4 ID : 48180432856 Status : Answered Chosen Option : 3
The aforesaid four questions stand on a different footing. They are not matters of academic opinion or inferential in nature on which experts may reasonably differ. Each has only one correct answer, which can be verified objectively from material available in the public domain and from the standard source texts.
The restraint laid down in Nandita (supra) is not an absolute bar. The same decision recognises that a key answer may be interfered with where it is clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is, where no reasonable body of persons well versed in the subject would regard it as correct. That test is met where the error is apparent without any inferential process or rationalisation. The four questions fall within that narrow category.
An error of this kind should not be suffered by the candidates. A wrong key in a competitive examination affects ranking and eligibility, since the marks awarded on the basis of the key determine a candidate’s merit position and whether the candidate crosses the qualifying cut-off, and even a single mark may decide whether a candidate is considered. However, this Court will neither substitute its own view nor fix the answer key itself. The proper course is to have the experts determine the matter afresh.
For the said reasons, I am of the view that the four questions bearing Question IDs 4818042982, 4818042962, 4818048438 and 481804978, should be referred to the respective subject experts for determination.
For the said reasons, the petitions are disposed of, referring the aforesaid four questions to subject experts. The petition is treated as a representation, and it is directed that the expert committee shall look into the petitions, hear the petitioners and pass a speaking order within 3 weeks from today.
The petition, along with any pending applications, is disposed of.