Vivek Sharma & Ors. vs Union Of India & Anr.

Since a common question of facts and law arises in the present O.A.s, they are being disposed of through this common order. However, for the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted primarily from O.A. No. 511/2024 with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

Highlighting the facts of the learned counsel for the applicants drew our attention to the record of proceedings dated 13.03.2026 & 23.04.2026. The same are reproduced below verbatim:

Thus, on a plain reading of the question itself, it appears that the sale certificate was already available and the same was required to be accompanied by the prescribed form, which is Form No. 20 and not Form No. 21.

With respect to Question ID No. 26433098050, the question pertains to which of the following is correct regarding road markings. As per the final answer key issued by the department, the answer is stated to be “white or yellow together” (Page 90). However, the contention of the applicant is that as per the initially issued provisional answer key, the correct answer was stated to be “central lines are used for two-way roads.” The applicant submits that the said answer, i.e., “central lines are used for two-way roads,” is in fact the correct answer.

In order to substantiate his arguments, the learned counsel places reliance upon the book on Road Safety, Signage and Signs issued by the Ministry of Road Transport and Highways, Government of India. In this regard, he refers to Page 167, Para 2, which reads as under:-

He further draws reference to the guidelines issued by the Delhi Traffic Police, which are placed at Page 168. He also refers to the summarized ATR issued by Cyberabad, Telangana. The aforesaid material, according to the applicant, substantiates his claim. It is further submitted that representations in this regard were made by the applicant; however, the same have not been adjudicated by the competent authority nor referred to the subject expert for proper consideration.

In support of his submissions, he relies upon the decision rendered by the Hon’ble Allahabad High Court in Kapil Kumar (Page 174–179, Para 17).

He also relies upon the judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Bihar Staff Selection Commission vs. Arun Kumar, particularly Paras 23 and 24 (Page 196).

It is further submitted that the mistake is on the part of the respondents and that the respondents ought to rectify the result of the examination. He submits that the examination advertisement pertains to the year 2022 and that recently a waiting list has been issued. The applicant is placed at Serial No. 69 in the waiting list and is likely to be called for document verification. It is further submitted that, as per the available information, 77 posts are yet to be filled.

Opposing the grant of relief, the present OA is not maintainable. He draws attention to the scheme of the advertisement at Page No. 31.

Counsel for the respondents vehemently argued the preliminary objections by referring to Para 4, Page No. 2 of OA No. 1746/2024, highlighting that the objections raised by the applicant were referred to a subject matter expert and, accordingly, the result was declared on the basis of the final answer key.

Let the records of the subject expert committee with respect to the aforesaid two questions be produced by the respondents and records have to be produced by SSC on the next date of hearing. List the matter on 25.03.2026 under the caption Part-Heard.

From the above, it is clear that the grievance of the applicants essentially arises from the evaluation of two questions bearing Question ID Nos. 26433097916 and 26433098050 in the written examination. While the applicants had qualified the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test as well as the Driving Trade Test, they contend that incorrect answers were adopted in the final answer key, resulting in denial of marks and their consequent non-selection. It is the contention of the applicants that they had duly raised their objections/representations against the said questions, contending that Form No. 20 was the correct answer to Question ID No. 26433097916 and that “Centre lines are used for a two-way road” was a correct answer to Question ID No. 26433098050. Despite the same, the final answer key was not corrected, and therefore, they have approached this Tribunal seeking appropriate relief.

Per contra, the learned counsel for the respondents opposed the claim of the applicants, submitting that the selection process was conducted strictly in accordance with the notified procedure and that the applicants could not be selected in the final result on account of their lower merit. It was submitted that the objections raised by the applicants against the two disputed questions were duly considered by the concerned Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) and the final answer key was thereafter finalized in accordance with the prescribed procedure. The respondents further contend that the decision of the Commission regarding the final answer key is final and that the Tribunal ought not to re-evaluate the answers or substitute its own view for that of the experts. Reliance has been placed upon the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mahesh Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission(SLP (C) No. 1951/2022), Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.(2018) 2 SCC 351, and other cases, to contend that the courts should exercise restraint in matters relating to evaluation of answer scripts and finalisation of answer keys, as such matters fall within the domain of the examination authorities and subject experts. It has been submitted that where the objections raised by the candidates have already been duly considered by the concerned Subject Matter Experts and the answer key has thereafter been finalized, the same ought not to be interfered with merely on the basis of an alternative interpretation or material produced by the candidates.

Learned counsel for the applicants, in rejoinder, submitted that the reply filed by the respondents does not clearly disclose whether the same has been filed on behalf of all the respondents, particularly when the issue concerning the final answer key falls within the exclusive domain and responsibility of the Staff Selection Commission. It was further submitted that the finality clause contained in the examination notice cannot oust the jurisdiction of judicial review where the answer adopted in the final key is manifestly incorrect. Learned counsel emphasized that the applicants are not seeking re-evaluation of their answer sheets, but only grant of marks for answers which, according to them, were demonstrably correct. It was contended that the present case constitutes a rare and exceptional circumstance, as the incorrect answers are clear and cogent and the applicants have missed the cut-off only marginally on account thereof. The judgments relied upon by the respondents, according to learned counsel, are distinguishable on facts and do not preclude judicial interference in the peculiar circumstances of the present case.

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings available on record.

The comparative chart of the marks obtained by the applicants, as placed on record by the learned counsel for the applicants, reads as under: Marks Marks if Challenge of Last Marks Question( Projecte Applica Categor O.A. No. d Question Selected Obtaine s) d nt y ID Candida d Correcte Marks te d 264330979 511/202 Vivek 16 & 73.6381 76.1381 UR 75.08391 +2.50 4 Sharma 264330980 2 2 50 264330979 Ajit 511/202 16 & 70.1606 72.6606 Singh OBC 72.03313 +2.50 4 264330980 3 3 Beniwal 50 264330979 511/202 16 & 69.8931 72.3931 Jitender OBC 72.03313 +2.50 4 264330980 4 4 50 264330979 Naresh 511/202 16 & 70.6956 73.1956 Kumar OBC 72.03313 +2.50 4 264330980 3 3 Pachara 50 608/202 Ajay 264330979 70.9631 72.2131 EWS 71.49813 +1.25 4 Kumar 16 3 3

The comparative chart of the marks obtained by the applicants and the marks of the last selected candidates in their respective categories reveals that, upon grant of the marks claimed for the disputed questions, all the applicants would cross the marks of the last selected candidates in their respective categories.

At the same time, the aforesaid aspect has to be considered in the light of the stand taken by the respondents. The applicants have placed on record the relevant forms, guidelines, and other material in support of their contention that the answers suggested by them were correct. However, the respondents have contended that the objections raised by the applicants were duly considered by the concerned Subject Matter Experts in accordance with the prescribed procedure and that, upon such consideration, the final answer key was finalized.

We have carefully considered the rival submissions, the material placed on record by the applicants, the final answer key issued by the respondents, as well as the report of the Subject Matter Expert/Expert Committee produced pursuant to the directions of this Tribunal. We are conscious of the settled principle that in matters relating to competitive examinations, the opinion of subject experts ordinarily deserves due weight and the Court/Tribunal should not substitute its own academic opinion for that of the experts. At the same time, such deference cannot mean that an answer key is immune from judicial scrutiny in every circumstance. The permissible scope of interference remains narrow, but where the material on record demonstrates that the answer adopted is manifestly erroneous, or where the expert opinion does not address the actual controversy arising from the question, interference may be warranted.

The present case, in our considered view, requires examination on that limited parameter. The applicants have challenged two specific questions, namely Question ID Nos. 26433097916 and 26433098050. The comparative chart placed on record shows that, upon grant of the marks claimed by the applicants, each of them would cross the marks obtained by the last selected candidate in the respective category. Thus, the challenge is neither academic nor inconsequential; the determination of the correctness of the disputed questions directly affects the applicants' candidature.

As regards Question ID No.26433097916, the question reads:

In Kanpur University And Others vs Samir Gupta And Others , 1984 SCR (1) 73, the Apex Court held as under:

We have also considered the specific reasoning recorded by the Subject Matter Expert (who appeared to us to be paper setter) in support of the answer key, namely that “Form No.21 or car sale certificate proves that the vehicle original owner transferred ownership to another individual to receive compensation”. We have due regard to the said opinion. However, the reasoning does not directly answer the question actually framed. The question does not ask which form is the sale certificate; that fact is already apparent from the nomenclature of Form No.21. The question asks which form the sale certificate is required to be accompanied by. The expert remark, therefore, proceeds on an assumption different from the precise grammatical and substantive purport of the question and does not deal with the distinction emerging from Form No.20, which expressly refers to the sale certificate as an enclosure.

In Civil Appeal No. 350 of 2023, The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. v. Miss Hage Mamung & Ors., decided on 20.01.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as under:

In these circumstances, the opinion of the Subject Matter Expert cannot, by itself, foreclose judicial scrutiny. The expert report is undoubtedly entitled to weight, but the reasons furnished must bear a rational nexus with the question under consideration and the material relied upon. Where the expert response does not address the very issue arising from the wording of the question and the contemporaneous statutory material placed before the Committee, the Tribunal cannot treat such response as conclusive. The principle of judicial restraint in academic matters does not extend to sustaining an answer merely because it has been certified by an expert when the certification itself does not deal with the actual issue.

We are, therefore of the view that, in respect of Question ID No.26433097916, the answer adopted in the final answer key cannot be sustained in its present form. The material before us demonstrates that Form No.21 is the sale certificate, whereas Form No.20 is the application for registration in which the sale certificate is required to be enclosed. Consequently, the answer “Form No.21” does not correctly correspond to the question as framed.

Coming to Question ID No.26433098050, the question asks:

The official Road Safety, Signage and Signs material placed on record by the applicants materially supports both propositions. It states that “White or yellow together with black are used for kerb and object marking” and, in the very same chapter, states that on a two-way road the centre line separates the streams of traffic coming from opposite directions and facilitates their movement. The official Government publication thus contains the substance of both options.

The material placed on record further shows that the objection raised by the candidates specifically asserted that there were multiple correct answers. However, the Expert Committee's response (No.2 is correct.) to the objection, as produced before us, merely records rejection of the objection without furnishing any discernible reasoning reconciling the two propositions contained in the Government publication itself. We are conscious that the Court should not ordinarily undertake a comparative academic exercise. However, the official material relied upon by the applicants itself contains both statements as correct descriptions of road markings. This materially distinguishes the present case.

In our considered opinion, therefore, Question ID No.26433098050 suffers from more than one correct answer. A multiple-choice question framed in such a manner, where two of the alternatives are supported by the official instructional material relied upon in the examination domain itself, cannot fairly be permitted to operate to the detriment of candidates who selected one of the correct alternatives. To uphold the final answer in such circumstances would introduce an element of uncertainty into the selection process for which the candidates cannot be made responsible.

We are mindful of the decisions relied upon by the respondents, which emphasize restraint and caution against re-evaluation of answer keys. Those principles are fully accepted. However, the same jurisprudence also recognizes that exceptional interference is permissible where the error is demonstrable.

The present matter falls within that limited exception. In respect of the first question, the expert reasoning does not address the actual controversy arising from the wording of the question and the statutory forms. In respect of the second question, the official Government material itself supports more than one of the options. We are, therefore, not substituting our own academic opinion for that of the experts; rather, we are examining whether the decision-making process and the resultant answer key withstand scrutiny in the light of the undisputed material placed before us. In our considered view, they do not.

Once the aforesaid two questions are found to be defective, the applicants are entitled to have their answer sheets evaluated in accordance with the correct position. The comparative chart demonstrates that, upon the grant of the marks attributable to the disputed questions, all the applicants cross the marks obtained by the last selected candidates of their respective categories.

We have two options available to us: either to direct the respondents to constitute an expert committee to examine the aforesaid two questions afresh, or to direct the respondents to ignore the said two questions and re-evaluate the marks of the candidates before us. Upon thoughtful consideration, we are of the view that the first option may further delay the adjudication of the issues arising for our consideration, particularly as the advertisement pertains to the year 2022, and may result in further opening of a Pandora’s box. We, therefore, deem it appropriate that the respondents, by ignoring the aforesaid two questions, cancel the same and, in order to ensure that no candidate is penalised on account of errors in the answer keys provided by the resource persons, award pro-rata marks to each candidate and thereafter prepare and release the revised merit list on a pro-rata basis.

In view of the aforesaid analysis, the respondents are directed to cancel the aforesaid two questions and, with a view to ensuring that no candidate is penalised on account of the mistakes in the answer keys provided by the resource persons, award pro-rata marks to each candidate and thereafter prepare and release the revised merit list on a Central Administrative Tribunal^{pro-rata basis. The respondents shall thereafter revisit the result of the} candidates on the basis of such re-computation. In the event the applicants fall within the zone of selection upon such re-computation, their candidature shall be considered for appointment in accordance with the applicable rules, subject to their otherwise being eligible and fulfilling all other prescribed conditions, either by creating supernumerary posts or by adjusting them against future vacancies, as may be administratively feasible.

Considering that the examination relates to the year 2022, the applicants have specifically demonstrated the consequential effect of the disputed questions on their merit, and that the issue concerns only the limited correction of two questions, the aforesaid exercise shall be completed expeditiously, preferably within twelve weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The Original Applications are, accordingly, allowed and disposed of in the above terms.

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