Saurav Goyal vs Union Public Service Commission & Anr.

“A. Set aside/quash the impugned Answer Key dated 21.05.2025, issued by the Respondent-UPSC in respect of General Studies Paper-I of the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2024, to the extent it declares Option (c) - "Both 1 and 2" as the correct answer to Question No. 15 of Set-C, and "2 only" as the consequently direct the Respondent to treat Option (b) correct answer and award 2 marks to the Applicant for the said question;

B. Direct the Respondent to recompute the Applicant's marks and revise his result in the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2024, in accordance with law;

C. In view of the subsequent conclusion of the relevant examination cycles, direct the Respondent to grant the Applicant appropriate consequential or compensatory relief, including a one-time opportunity to appear in a subsequent Civil Services (Main) Examination [Mains 2027 or subsequent] directly, subject to applicable eligibility conditions;

D. Pass such other order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the interest of justice.

E. Pass such other or further order(s) as this Hon'ble Tribunal may deem fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”

“15.

With reference to Union Budget, consider the following statements: Statement 1: The Union Finance Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister lays the Annual Financial Statement before both the Houses of Parliament. Statement 2: At the Union level, no demand for a grant can be made except on the recommendation of the President of India. Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a)

1 only

(b)

2 only

(c)

Both 1 and 2

(d)

Neither 1 nor 2”

“112. Annual financial statement-

(1)

The President shall in respect of every financial year cause to be laid before both the Houses of Parliament a statement of the estimated

(2)

The estimates of expenditure embodied in the annual financial statement shall show separately—

(a)

the sums required to meet expenditure described by this Constitution as expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India; and

(b)

the sums required to meet other expenditure proposed to be made from the Consolidated Fund of India, and shall distinguish expenditure on revenue account from other expenditure.

(3)

The following expenditure shall be expenditure charged on the Consolidated Fund of India—

(a)

the emoluments and allowances of the President and other expenditure relating to his office;

(b)

the salaries and allowances of the Chairman and the Deputy Chairman of the Council of States and the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the House of the People;

(c)

debt charges for which the Government of India is liable including interest, sinking fund charges and redemption charges, and other expenditure relating to the raising of loans and the service and redemption of debt;

(d)

(i) the salaries, allowances and pensions payable to or in respect of Judges of the Supreme Court,

(ii)

the pensions payable to or in respect of Judges of the Federal Court,

(iii)

the pensions payable to or in respect of Judges of any High Court which exercises jurisdiction in relation to any area included in the territory of India or which at any time before the commencement of this Constitution exercises jurisdiction in relation to any area included in a Governor's Province of the Dominion of India;

(e)

the salary, allowances and pension payable to or in respect of the

(f)

any sums required to satisfy any judgment, decree or award of any court or arbitral tribunal;

(g)

any other expenditure declared by this Constitution or by Parliament by law to be so charged.

113. Procedure in Parliament with respect to estimates -

(1)

So much of the estimates as relates to expenditure charged upon the Consolidated Fund of India shall not be submitted to the vote of Parliament, but nothing in this clause shall be construed as preventing the discussion in either House of Parliament of any of those estimates.

(2)

So much of the said estimates as relates to other expenditure shall be submitted in the form of demands for grants to the House of the People, and the House of the People shall have power to assent, or to refuse to assent, to any demand, or to assent to any demand subject to a reduction of the amount specified therein.

(3)

No demand for a grant shall be made except on the recommendation of the President.”

“4.

Insofar as the merits is concerned, the issue is with regard to a question based upon the Constitution of India which inter alia is reproduced as hereinbelow:-

"25.

With reference to Union Budget, consider the following statements:

1.

The Union Finance Minister on behalf of the Prime Minister lays the Annual Financial Statement before both the Houses of Parliament.

2.

grant At the Union level, no demand for a can be made except on recommendation of the President of India. The

Which of the statements given above is/are correct?

(a)

1 only

(b)

2 only

(c)

Both 1 and 2

(d)

Neither 1 nor 2"

4.1.

While the UPSC, in its final answer key, had declared that option (c) i.e. Both 1 and 2 would be the correct answer, according to the petitioner, the correct answer would be option (b) i.e. 2 only. Learned advocate Ms. Jani would draw the attention of this Court to Article 112 which inter alia states as regards the President laying before the Houses of Parliament a statement of the estimated receipts and expenditure of Government of India for that year, referred to as the Annual Financial Statement. Learned advocate would further draw the attention of this Court to Article 113 of the Constitution of India whereby the Constitution has inter alia prescribed the procedure with regard to estimates to be tabled in the Parliament. Learned advocate would rely

6.1.

Having observed as thus, the question would be that how could this situation be salvaged insofar as the petitioner is concerned.

6.2.

In this regard, it would appear that the situation which has arisen, while it is being looked at by the Hon'ble Apex Court yet, this Court cannot but observe that in an examination of such an importance, the fact that the answer keys are being published after the final results are declared, would not be of any purpose whatsoever. To this Court, it would appear that such declaration would be rendering the candidates like the petitioner almost remediless since a defense which could be very reasonably taken would be that since the final examinations and the interviews for the UPSC examination for the said year has been concluded, nothing could be done about it. To this Court, such a position cannot be countenanced.

6.3.

To this Court, it would appear that since the above situation is of the creation of the UPSC and whereas, since the prima facie opinion of this Court as regards the answer to question no.25 having been erroneously given by the UPSC could not be dislodged by learned advocate for the respondent and since it also prima facie appears that since the wrong evaluation of one question has resulted in the petitioner being excluded from the Mains Examination for UPSC, 2024, at this stage, as a via media, the following directions are being passed:

(i)

Issue Notice to the respondents, returnable on the 15.12.2025. Learned Advocate Mr.Shukla waives service of notice on behalf of respondents no.1.1 and 1.2. Learned Advocate Mr.Bhagyoday Mishra waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no.2.

(ii)

By way of interim relief, respondent no.2 is directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination for Indian Forest Service (Main) Examination / Civil Services (Mains)Examination pursuant to Examination Notice No. 06/2025-IFOS dated 22.01.2025.

(iii)

It is further clarified that while the petitioner is permitted to appear in the examination, the result of the petitioner shall be kept in a sealed cover, which would be opened only after the directions of this Court and whereas, it is further clarified that permission to appear in the

(iv)

The UPSC shall take appropriate steps to ensure that whatever procedural formalities have to be completed by the petitioner are done as soon as possible and whereas, the UPSC shall ensure that the petitioner is permitted to sit in the examination for the IFoS post in the 2025 examination.

Direct service of this order is permitted.”

“14.

Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Kaushik also could not point out either from the record or from submission as to how such an order of permitting the petitioner to participate in the oral interview would prejudicially affect the respondents or any other stake holders. In absence of there being any material to indicate that allowing the petitioner to participate in the oral interview would not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner and as the same would not adversely affect any of the stake holders, propose to issue following directions :-

(1)

The respondents are directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the oral interview for the post in question and for the said purpose, allow the petitioner to fill up the detailed application forms or to perform any other formality that would be required for appearing in the oral interview as if the petitioner is duly qualified for 2025 Batch for the post of Indian Forest Services (IFS) and the petitioner's shortfall of 2.06 marks would not come in the way of the petitioner in considering the case of the present petitioner at least for the purpose of allowing the petitioner to appear in the oral interview in light of the fact that the petitioner has successfully cleared the written examination.

(II)

The respondents shall not create any hurdle and allow the petitioner to fill up the detailed application form as well as any other formality that is required to be completed, which is to be filled online before the oral interview and in case, the Portal to accept such application is already closed, then the petitioner is permitted to make a physical application and the respondents are directed to accept the same and process it as if the petitioner is a qualified candidate.

(III)

The petitioner is directed to furnish an undertaking before the UPSC within a period of one week from today to the effect that such permission to appear in the oral interview for the post of Indian Forest Services (IFS) shall not create any right or equity in favour of the petitioner and the petitioner even if succeeds in such interview, he shall not claim appointment only on the basis of such performance unless the petition is decided infavour of the petitioner.

(IV)

The respondent No.2 UPSC is directed to keep the petitioner's result of oral interview in sealed cover and on the next date or at a subsequent date, when the results of all the candidates are published, the respondents are directed to bring the result of the petitioner in a sealed cover before this Court so as to know the fate of the petitioner in the oral interview.

15.

In view of the above directions, list the matter for final adjudication on 23.6.2026.”

5.

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.

6.

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.

6.1

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.

6.2

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.

7.

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

7.1.

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.

8.

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.”

9.

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

10.

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.

11.

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.

12.

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.

13.

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.

14.

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.

15.

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.

16.

Pending M.A.(s), if any, shall stand disposed of. There shall be no order as to costs.”