AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
HARPREET SINGH BRAR, J. (Oral)
With the consent of all the parties, this common order shall dispose of all the aforementioned writ petitions as they arise from a similar factual matrix and pose identical question of law. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are taken from CWP No.3549 of 2023.
The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking issuance of an appropriate writ, order or direction in the nature of Certiorari for quashing the impugned revised result dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-10) and the impugned revised Answer Key (Annexure P-9), to the extent of treating Option “D” as the correct answer to Question No. 97 in Set-C . Further, a prayer has been made seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing respondent No.3-Commission to consider Option “B” as the correct answer for Question No. 97 in Set-C and revise the result of the petitioner accordingly, and to consider her for appointment to the post of Physical Training Instructor pursuant to Advertisement No. 6/2006, along with all consequential benefits, including fixation of pay and seniority.
CONTENTIONS
Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the petitioner had applied for the post of Physical Training Instructor (hereinafter ‘PTI’) under Category No. 23 of Advertisement No. 6/2006, and participated in the selection process conducted pursuant to judgment dated 08.04.2020 passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ramjit Singh Kardam and others v. Sanjeev Kumar and others, 2020 (20) SCC 209 (Annexure P-1).
Learned counsel submits that pursuant to notice dated 30.07.2020 (Annexure P-2), the petitioner appeared in the written examination held on 23.08.2020, for which she was issued admit card bearing Roll No. 60230331 (Annexure P-3). Subsequently, the original Answer Key was released and the result was eventually declared on dated 24.09.2020, as discernible from Annexures P-4 to P-6. He further submits that certain candidates had challenged the Answer Key before this Court through CWP No. 17196 of 2020 titled as ‘Jaspal Singh and others v. State of Haryana and others’ and other connected writ petitions. The same were disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2022 (Annexure P-7) upon assurance by the learned State Counsel that an appropriate decision will be taken by the authorities (respondent-Commission) on the recommendations of the Expert Panel within a period of two months. Pursuant thereto, the respondent-Commission revised the Answer Key for the written examination based on the report of the Expert Panel and accordingly, declared the result 09.09.2022, as discernible from Annexures P-8 and P-9.
Learned counsel, however, argues that upon revision of the Answer Key, the answer to Question No. 97 of Set-C, was changed from option “B” to option “D”. The petitioner had marked option “B” in her OMR sheet (Annexure P-12) answering the said question and, as reflected in the revised result (Annexures P-10 and P-11), she secured 98 marks out of 200, falling short of the cut-off by only 2 marks. He further submits that the revised answer i.e. option “D” is not the correct answer to Question No.97 of Set-C as it is not supported by the IGNOU study material (Annexure P-13). It is further contended that neither was the petitioner afforded an opportunity to place her objections before the Expert Panel nor was its report supplied to her, and therefore, the possibility of human error cannot be ruled out. The petitioner lost 02 marks when the correct answer for Question No. 97 of Set-C was changed from option “B” to option “D” resulting in her exclusion from the zone of consideration. Learned counsel argues that the act and conduct of the respondent-Commission in arbitrarily changing the perceived correct answer to the said question, is violative of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Thus, the revised Answer Key (Annexure P-9) and consequential result dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-10), deserve to be quashed and the petitioner ought to be granted the benefit arising out of treating option “B” as the correct answer to Question 97 of Set-C.
Learned counsel for the petitioners further emphasized that this Court vide order dated 06.02.2026 passed in CWP No. 9266 of 2023 directed the respondent-Commission to get the validity of Questions No. 12 of Set-A, 92 of Set-B, 2, 5, 16, 36, 42, 95 and 97 of Set-C and 1, 5, 7, 11, 21, 28, 50, 51, 70, 73 and 92 of Set-D, of written test conducted in furtherance of the advertisement (supra), re-examined by Experts. However, the respondent-Commision has not complied with the same as it failed to produce the report of the Experts before this Court in a sealed cover.
Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission submits that the written examination pursuant to the advertisement (supra) was conducted on 23.08.2020.The Answer Key was released on 27.08.2020 and the result was declared on 24.09.2020. However, certain candidates submitted objections regarding the validity of the said Answer Key. Learned counsel submits that the respondent-Commission initially referred all 100 questions to the Chief Examiner and thereafter, to the Expert Panel constituted to consider whether any change in the Answer Key was warranted. On the basis of the recommendations of the Expert Panel, the competent authority addressed the objections raised and accordingly, released the impugned final result dated 15.12.2022 (wrongly mentioned as ‘15.12.2020’ in Annexure P-11).
Learned counsel further submits that, in the meantime, a bunch of writ petitions, led by Jaspal Singh (supra), challenging the Answer Key for the written examination for the post in question, were moved before this Court. The same were disposed of vide order dated 26.07.2022 and in compliance therewith, the respondent-Commission forwarded all the objected questions to the panel of experts again and, on the basis of its report, revised the result. The impugned revised result of the written test was uploaded on the Commission’s website on 13.12.2022, pursuant to which recommendations were made and the successful candidates were appointed.
Further, the argument raised by learned counsel for the petitioner regarding non-compliance with the order dated 06.02.2026 in CWP No. 9266 of 2023 is required to be rejected as this Court had confined the judicial scrutiny to Question. No. 97 of Set-C vide order dated 21.05.2026. It was further directed that the opinion of academic experts from the Department of Psychology, Panjab University, Chandigarh be obtained regarding the correct answer to Question No.97 of Set-C. Lastly, learned counsel contends that the objections raised in the present writ petition cannot be considered at this stage, as the selection process has already attained finality. Moreover, the successful candidates, who have been working as PTIs since 2022-23, have also not been impleaded as parties to the present petition.
OBSERVATIONS AND ANALYSIS
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after perusing the record with their able assistance, it emerges that the written examination pursuant to the advertisement (supra) was held on 23.08.2020 and its Answer Key was released on 27.08.2020, followed by declaration of the result on 24.09.2020. Certain candidates objected to that Answer Key, and moved this Court by way of Jaspal Singh (supra)along with connected writ petitions. Pursuant to the final order dated 26.07.2022 (Annexure P-7) passed in Jaspal Singh (supra), the respondent-Commission revised the Answer Key on the basis of an Expert Panel report. Accordingly, the impugned revised Answer Key (Annexure P-9) was issued, and the result of the written exam was ultimately declared on 09.09.2022, as discernible from Annexures P-8. On that basis, the impugned revised final result dated 13.12.2022 (Annexure P-10) was declared.
Thereafter, on 21.02.2023, the respondent-Commission was directed to refer the objection raised by the petitioners with respect to Question No.97 of Set-C to the same Expert Panel which had considered the earlier objections. The respondent-Commision was also directed to submit the report of the said Expert Committee within 08 weeks, however, the same was not complied with. A perusal of the subsequent interim orders indicates that multiple opportunities were granted to learned State counsel to comply with order dated 21.02.2023. Be that as it may, eventually, learned State Counsel furnished a copy of the consolidated reply. On 08.10.2024, learned State counsel submitted a further clarification that according to the Expert Panel, the correct answer to Question No.97 of Set-C remains option “D,” which further caused the petitioners to question if the Experts possess the specific subject knowledge to be the binding academic authority in this scenario.
Subsequently, vide order dated 21.05.2026, this Court restricted the scope of judicial intervention into the impugned selection process to Question No.97 of Set-C which read as under:
Who prepared the ‘Individual Intelligence Test in 1904?’
Simmon b) Alfred Binet c) Turnman d) (a) and (b) both At the risk of reiteration, it is clarified that the impugned revised Answer Key (Annexure P-9), in line with the Expert Panel's assessment, support option “D” as the correct answer, whereas the petitioners have argued in favour of option “B.”
It appears that vide order dated 21.05.2026, this Court directed the respondent-Commission to obtain an opinion regarding the validity of Question No. 97 and its correct answer from experts in the Department of Psychology, Panjab University, Chandigarh. The Vice Chancellor of Panjab University was requested to appoint two experts from the said Department for this purpose, who shall submit their report. Pursuant thereto, the reports of the experts have been received in sealed cover and have been taken on record as Mark “X” to Mark “Z,” respectively. Registry is directed to tag the same at appropriate place in the paper book.
Before delving further, it is necessary to first set out the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India with respect to a disputed answer key. It is no longer res integra that The view of academic experts as to the correctness of an answer key must ordinarily be accorded primacy, and courts would be well advised to exercise restraint in substituting their own opinion for that of persons possessing specialised subject knowledge. Reliance in this regard may be placed on Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357; Vikesh Kumar Gupta and others v. State of Rajasthan and others, (2021) 2 SCC 309; Shubham Pal v. Staff Selection Commission, SLP(C) No.22002 of 2024 decided on 03.02.2026; and U.P.P.S.C. Through its Chairman v. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254.
A two-Judge bench of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Sunil Kumar Singh, Civil Appeal No. 4970 of 2017, decided on 05.08.2026 (SC) has held that Courts reviewing exam disputes cannot step into the shoes of academic experts to refashion answer keys or evaluation calls, doing so oversteps the bounds of judicial review, and turns the court into an ‘expert of experts,’ a role it was never meant to play. Further, the two-Judge Bench speaking through Justice Dipankar Datta held the following:
“5.Having perused the impugned order, particularly in the light of the law laid down by this Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) where various decisions of the High Court are found to have been disapproved, the High Court in our considered view exceeded the jurisdiction of a judicial review court in its interference with the decision of experts in the academic field.
The manner of examination of the so-called dubious questions
pertaining to different topics by the High Court, as if it were an expert of experts, and in making the directions it did are clearly indefensible.”
(Emphasis Supplied)
A perusal of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble Supreme Court elucidates that the Courts may only intervene where the answer key discloses an obvious and manifest error. In order to fall under the ambit of this exception, it is vital that the alleged error is apparent on the face of the record and requires no elaborate reasoning or investigation to establish its invalidity. Furthermore, it is also significant to consider that contrary views do not exist regarding existence of the proposed error.
Applying this standard to the matter at hand, it appears that Question No. 97 of Set-C pertained to the creator of the Individual Intelligence Test in 1904. Previously, option “B” i.e. Alfred Binet was considered to be the correct answer by the respondent-Commission. However, upon revision, it was agreed that option “D” [i.e. both options “A” (Simmon) and “B” (Alfred Binet)] would be perceived as the correct answer to the disputed question. A perusal of the opinion (Mark Y) submitted by the Experts from the Department of Psychology, pursuant to the directions dated 21.05.2026 of this Court, also indicates that option “D” is the correct answer for Question No.97 of Set-C. The aforementioned opinion (Mark Y) tendered by the Department Experts is reproduced below as follows:
“Reference letter no. D-LCI/26/2026 dated 24/07/26 According to Anastasi (1988):
In 1904, the minister of public instruction appointed Binet to the commission to study procedures for education of retarded children. It was in this connection with the objectives of this commission that Binet in collaboration with Simon, prepared the first Binet-Simon scale.
Since the question is not about the year in which it was prepared, the answer remains D If we consider the statement of the question as right, then the option D that is a and B both is correct.”
Evidently, the Experts from the Department of Psychology, Panjab University are of the considered opinion that the Binet and Simon jointly developed the Individual Intelligence Test in the year 1904, after Binet was appointed to the commission constituted to study procedures for children with special needs. It has also been categorically mentioned in the said opinion (Mark Y) that since the question does not pertain to the year in which it was developed, the correct answer ought to be option “D” which subsumes both Options “A” and “B.”
Further still, nothing available on the record, including the IGNOU study material relied upon by the petitioner, discloses a palpable and demonstrable error with respect to Question No.97 of Set-C. At the most, the grievance of the petitioner raises a debatable matter of academic preference between a partially correct answer i.e. Option “B” and a more complete one i.e. Option “D.” Thus, in the absence of a self-evident, non-inferential error, this Court does not find it appropriate to intervene and disturb the conclusion drawn by subject-matter experts, in terms of Ran Vijay Singh (supra). Additionally, once the matter has been placed before an Expert Committee and the results revised accordingly, no further scrutiny is permissible. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra) rendered by Two-Judge Bench of Hon’ble Supreme Court, speaking through Justice Madan B. Lokur the following was observed:
“23.In appeal against the decision of the High Court, it was held by this Court that the principles of natural justice are not applicable in such cases. It was held that: “The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners.”
27.The principle laid down by this Court in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth was affirmed in Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das, 2007(4) S.C.T. 462 : 2007(5) Recent Apex Judgments (R.A.J.) 587 : (2007) 8 SCC 242 and it was reiterated that there must be finality attached to the result of a public examination and in the absence of a statutory provision re-evaluation of answer scripts cannot be permitted and that it could be done only in exceptional cases and as a rarity. Reference was also made to Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 and President, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar, 2007(1) S.C.T. 350 : (2007) 1 SCC 603
30.The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are:
(i)If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.
31.On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question.
32.It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”
CONCLUSION:
In view of the aforesaid discussion, all the aforementioned writ petitions are hereby dismissed, being bereft of merit.
Pending miscellaneous application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case(s).