Gujarat High Court

Bhavin Bharatkumar Kubavat vs High Court Of Gujarat on 22 April, 2025

Author: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

Bench: Vaibhavi D. Nanavati

                                                                                                                NEUTRAL CITATION




                           C/SCA/1395/2025                                     JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

                                                                                                                undefined




                                   IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD

                                   R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1395 of 2025
                                                       With
                               CIVIL APPLICATION (FOR INTERIM RELIEF) NO. 1 of 2025
                                  In R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 1395 of 2025

                      FOR APPROVAL AND SIGNATURE:


                      HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                      ==========================================================

                                  Approved for Reporting                      Yes           No

                      ==========================================================
                                             BHAVIN BHARATKUMAR KUBAVAT & ORS.
                                                           Versus
                                                HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT & ANR.
                      ==========================================================
                      Appearance:
                      MS PRACHI UPADHYAY FOR MR VAIBHAV A VYAS(2896) for the
                      Petitioner(s) No. 1,2,3,4
                      MR HAMESH C NAIDU(5335) for the Respondent(s) No. 1
                      MR KV SHELAT(834) for the Respondent(s) No. 2
                      ==========================================================

                       CORAM:HONOURABLE MS. JUSTICE VAIBHAVI D. NANAVATI

                                                         Date : 22/04/2025

                                                        ORAL JUDGMENT

1. Issue Rule, returnable forthwith. Mr.Hamesh Naidu, learned

advocate waives service of Rule for the respondent no.1 and Mr.K.V.

Shelat, learned advocate waives service of Rule for the respondent

no.2.

2. Heard Ms.Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing for

Mr.Vaibhav Vyas, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

Mr.Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate appearing for the respondent

no.1 and Mr.K.V. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the

respondent no.2.

3. By way of the present petition, the petitioners herein have

prayed for the following reliefs:-

"8. The petitioners respectfully pray that, on the basis of the facts and circumstances as mentioned hereinabove and which may be urged at the time of hearing, the Honourable Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent authorities and may be pleased to:-

(A) Direct the respondents to give additional marks to the petitioners for having answered correctly the question referred to in the petition, and consequently direct the respondents to revise the final result considering the fact that the petitioners have correctly answered the above referred question and thereby direct the respondent authorities to consider the petitioners eligible for appearing in the mains examination, or in the alternative

(B) Quash and set aside the action of the respondents of considering the option answered by the petitioners as incorrect answer to the question in issue and direct the respondents to consider the answer given by the petitioners as correct and

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

thereby award additional marks to the petitioners and direct the respondents to publish the revised provisional answer key with the corrected answer, and

(C) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition, the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondents to permit the petitioners to participate in the main examination for the recruitment process initiated pursuant to the advertisement at Annexure-A to this petition, and

(D) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to consider the case of the petitioners, for awarding additional marks for having attempted the question correctly, and

(F) Pending admission and final disposal of this petition the Honourable Court may be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to constitute a committee consisting of experts in the field to decide the correctness of the answer key prepared by the NTA for the above referred question, and

(G) Award the cost of this petition, and

(H) Grant any other relief or pass any other order which the Honourable Court may consider as just and proper."

4. The petitioners herein have approached this Court, invoking Article

226 of the Constitution of India, being aggrieved by the illegal, arbitrary

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

and discriminatory action on the part of the respondent - authorities of

considering the correct answer marked by the petitioners in the

preliminary examination as incorrect, depriving the petitioners of

additional marks to which, the petitioners were entitled to and

consequently, deducting the marks in respect of the said question

from the total marks obtained by the petitioners.

5. According to the petitioners, question no.47 in the question

paper, which is duly produced at Annexure-D at page 38, considered

correct by the respondent no.2 - NTA as per the provisional answer

key, was in fact, an incorrect answer. The petitioner no.2 raised

objection against the said answer to the question in issue by paying

the requisite fees as per the notice dated 15.11.2024, which is duly

produced at Annexure-E at page 39. Though such objection is raised

by the petitioner no.2, no action is taken by the respondent no.2 -

NTA. According to the petitioners, the correct answer to the said

question no.47 is option no.3 i.e. '4'. However, the respondent no.2

has erred in considering the answer as '3' i.e. option no.1.

6. According to the petitioners, question no.47 at page 9 of the

petition, reads as under:-

"Q.47. How many basic colours, does the ink of inkjet printers contain?

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

1.3 2.7 3.4 4.6"

7. The correct answer to the question is option no.1 i.e. '3'. It is

the case of the petitioners that the option no.3 i.e. '4' is the correct

answer. To substantiate their contention that the correct answer to

question no.47 is option no.3, the petitioners have reproduced

extracts of the copies of the representations preferred to the

respondent no.2 at Annexure-J. The aforesaid has given rise to the

filing of the present petition.

8. The petitioners herein applied for the post of Deputy Section

Officer pursuant to the advertisement issued by the High Court of

Gujarat on its administrative side being advertisement no.HCG/NTA/

01/2024[I]2 on 22.05.2024, inviting online applications for

appointment of 122 posts of Deputy Section Officer on the

establishment of the High Court of Gujarat. The number of posts

advertised came to be revised to 192 posts by corrigendum dated

27.09.2024. The advertisement and the corrigendum, as referred

above, are duly produced at Annexure-A. The responsibility of

conducting the recruitment process was cast upon the National

Testing Agency (NTA) i.e. the respondent no.2 herein. The NTA was

responsible for conducting the preliminary and the mains

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

examination in the said recruitment process. As per the format of

preliminary examination, a candidate was required to answer 100

multiple choice questions in an OMR sheet provided at the

examination center wherein, a candidate was awarded 1 mark for

each question answered correctly and the negative marking was

kept at 0.33 marks for each question answered incorrect. It is the

case of the petitioners that as the petitioners were fulfilling the

necessary eligibility criteria for appointment to the post in question,

the petitioners submitted their online application forms for

appointment to the post of Deputy Section Officer upon paying the

requisite examination fees. The candidates in reserved category

were required to secure 45 marks and other candidates were

required to secure 50 marks to qualify in the main examination. The

preliminary examination for the post of Deputy Section Officer was

scheduled for and conducted on 27.10.2024 wherein, the petitioners

appeared and performed well. The relevant extract of the question

paper, as referred above, is duly produced at Annexure-D. The

respondent no.2 issued public notice on 15.11.2024. By public

notice dated 15.11.2024, released the response-sheet of the

candidates as well as the provisional answer key to the questions

asked in the preliminary examination. By the said notice, objections

were invited from the candidates, which were to be submitted on or

before 17.11.2024. The copy of the response-sheet of one of the

petitioners and provisional answer key downloaded from the link

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

provided as per the said notice, is duly produced at Annexure-F.

Upon going through the provisional answer key, it is the case of the

petitioners, as referred above, that the answer to question no.47 is

option no.3 i.e. '4' and not option no.1 i.e. '3'.

9. Ms.Prachi Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioners relied on the facts, as referred above and submitted that

the issue in the present petition is in a very narrow compass

wherein, according to the petitioners, the correct answer to the

question no.47 is option no.3 i.e. '4'. To substantiate her contention,

Ms.Upadhyay, learned advocate relied on the extracts, which is duly

produced at page 52. Reliance is also placed at page 57 wherein, it

is placed on record the basic electronics and computer

fundamentals. Reliance is placed on page 58, which provides for

non-impact printers and inkjet printers and it is submitted that the

inkjet printer has four colours i.e. cyan, yellow, magenta and black.

Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that respondents

ought to have considered the aforesaid information placed by way

of representation before the competent authority however, in

absence of taking into consideration the aforesaid, the petitioners

have no other choice but, to approach this Court. It is submitted that

the prayers, as prayed for, in the present petition be allowed.

10. Mr.Hamesh Naidu, learned advocate appearing for the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

respondent no.1 relied on the affidavit-in-reply, duly produced at

page 59 and submitted that the petitioners have challenged the

question no.47 of the preliminary examination paper (objective

type- MCQs) conducted on 27.10.2024 for direct recruitment to the

post of Deputy Section Officer, High Court of Gujarat issued vide

advertisement no.NTA/HCG/01/2024/[I]/2. It is submitted that

contents of which, as stated in the present petition, defer from the

actual contents of the test booklet of the said preliminary

examination conducted by the NTA. It is submitted that challenge to

the contents of question is a deliberate distortion, which is an

attempt to mislead the Court and secure undue advantage of the

process to cover up the marks lost and, therefore, the present

petition is required to be dismissed. It is submitted that while the

detailed advertisement was published by the respondent no.1 on

22.05.2024, the task of conducting the examination on end-to-end

basis was entrusted to the respondent no.2 herein and thus, as per

the MOU i.e. the memorandum of understanding, signed between

the High Court of Gujarat and NTA, the preliminary examination for

the post of Deputy Section Officer was conducted by NTA on

27.10.2024.

10.1. Reliance is placed on the public notice issued by the

respondent no.2, issuing the provisional answer key and it is

submitted that after finalizing the challenges/objections raised by

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

the candidates, the respondent no.2 had forwarded the final answer

key for the said preliminary examination and upon placing the said

answer key before the Central Recruitment Committee of the High

Court on its administrative side, accordingly, approved the same.

Pursuant thereto, the respondent no.2 published the final answer

key on 20.11.2024 and the result of the preliminary examination

(containing list of candidates who have obtained the minimum

qualifying marks) was published by the NTA on 29.11.2024. It is

submitted that the petitioners herein have tried to alter the contents

of question in issue being question no.47. It is submitted that the

actual question as printed in the test with booklet is as under:-

"How many basic colors, does the color ink of inkjet printers contain?"

10.2. However, the petitioners have made an attempt to alter the

content of the question in order to fit in their answers and hence, to

secure a position in the final result as notified by the NTA. The

altered question from the petition memo is referred to by Mr.Naidu,

learned advocate for the respondent no.1. It is reiterated that such

question is altered to fit their answer and hence, secure marks

shortened with by the petitioners. It is submitted that such act on

the part of the petitioners is improper and unjust and hence, the

same may not be interfered with and the petition be rejected. It is

also submitted that when a litigant comes before the Court praying

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

for equities, it is expected of them to disclose true and correct facts

and that there cannot be any sort of material suppression. In the

instant case, there is a material suppression and, therefore also, the

present petition is required to be dismissed. It is submitted that only

the petitioner no.2 raised objections however, the petitioner nos.1,3

and 4 have never raised objections and, therefore, it is not open for

the petitioners to pray for such reliefs.

10.3. To substantiate the submissions, reliance is placed on the

ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of UPPSC,

Through Its Chairman & Anr vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. reported in

(2018)7 SCC 254. Paragraphs 9,11,13 and 14 (ii) Vikesh Kumar

Gupta & Anr vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2021)2 SCC

309. Paragraphs 12 and 13 (iii) Judgment delivered by the Hon'ble

High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in WPSS/410/2022 on

07.07.2022.

11. Ms.Upadhyay, learned advocate for the petitioners submitted

that as far as the alteration of question no.47 is concerned, there

appears to be a typographical error in quoting the said question in

the memo of the petition. However, the fact remains that the

relevant extract of the question paper containing the said question,

is reflected in the question booklet, which is produced at Annexure-

D at page 38. It is submitted that the there is no question of

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

suppression or misrepresentation. It is submitted that the objections

are raised by the petitioners at page 52 to the aforesaid effect. It is

submitted that the affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent no.1

itself transpires that the black, which is one of the colours, is not

being treated as colour by the respondent no.1. The extract of the

affidavit-in-reply is relied upon and it is submitted that the inkject

printers have four colours. It is reiterated that the petitioner no.2

had already objected to the provisional answer key to question

no.47 in issue. The respondent was required to take the same into

consideration and do the needful to publish the correct final answer

key. Had the aforesaid being done, the grievance of the petitioners

and the other similarly situated candidates would have been

automatically redressed. It is submitted that the petitioners herein

have immediately approached the Court upon publication of the

final answer key and when it has been demonstrated before the

Court that the answer of the petitioners is correct, the genuine

grievance of the petitioners be considered and that the petition be

allowed.

12. Mr.K.V. Shelat, learned advocate appearing for the respondent

no.2 has placed reliance on the affidavit-in-reply at page 81 and

submitted that the respondent no.2 released the response sheet

and provisional answer key vide public notice dated 15.11.2024 and

that, according to the petitioners, in spite of raising such objection,

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

no action is taken by the NTA with respect to the same. It is

submitted that the said challenge to the contents of questions is a

deliberate distortion, which is an absolute attempt to mislead the

Court and secure undue advantage of the process by trying to cover

up the marks lost and, therefore, the petition is required to be

dismissed at the threshold.

12.1. It is submitted that the vide public notice dated 15.11.2024,

the respondent no.2 displayed the OMR answer sheets, recorded

responses and provisional answer keys of stage-I examination on

the website and through the said public notice, the respondent no.2

invited candidates to challenge the answer keys by paying non-

refundable fee of Rs.200/- per answer challenged. It is submitted

that before releasing the answer keys, the same were verified by

the subject experts and thereafter, the final answer keys were

displayed on the website for the candidates. Reliance is placed on

Annexure-R2.

12.2. It is submitted that only the petitioner no.2 disputed the

question no.47 out of the four petitioners. Consequently, the

remaining three petitioner nos.1,3 and 4 have no locus to raise such

objection at this stage, as the candidates were duly notified through

public notice dated 15.11.2024. Further, the petitioners failed to

qualify stage - I and the same appears to be a mere attempt to

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

derive an undue advantage.

12.3. It is submitted that the petitioners have misrepresented

question no.47 to create confusion, mislead and take undue

advantage over the actual performance. The actual contents of the

question no.47 as printed in the test booklet of the Deputy Section

Officer examination, is referred to and produced at page 38, which

provides as to "how many basic colours, does the colour ink of inkjet

printers contain?". The petitioners have deliberately altered the

question no.47 to fit their answer and hence, secure a position in

the final result notified by the NTA. Referring to the altered question

in the memo of the petition, which is duly produced at page 9, it is

submitted that the altered question is "how many basic colours,

does the ink of inkjet printers contain?" It is submitted that the

petitioners have deliberately attempted to mislead the Court by

distorting the actual question to suit their case and thereby, claim

the undeserved marks. It is submitted that there is intentional

omission of the word/text "colour" significantly changing the

meaning and scope of the question. Resultantly, creating

misconception and fallacy regarding interpretation of the word. The

omission of the word "colour" from the question mentioned in the

petition, fundamentally alters its interpretation and is a clear

attempt to manipulate the facts. It is submitted that as per the

subject experts' evaluation, the correct answer key is option no.1

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

i.e. "3". The petitioners have contended that the correct answer is

option no.3 i.e. "4". Reliance is placed on paragraph 11 of the

affidavit-in-reply to substantiate as to how, the experts have arrived

at such conclusion. It is submitted that the petitioners herein having

not disclosed the correct and true facts, materially suppressed the

same, the present petition deserves to be dismissed on that ground

alone. It is submitted that neither of the other three petitioners

raised any objection against the provisional answer key or answer

key or objected to the provisional answer key before the prescribed

last date of submission i.e. 17.11.2024. Placing reliance on the

aforesaid, it is submitted that the present petition be dismissed.

12.4. Mr.Shelat, learned advocate also relied on the public notice

issued by the respondent no.2 herein dated 15.11.2024, duly

produced at page 90 wherein, placing reliance on the same, it is

submitted that as stated in the last paragraph of the said notice,

representations made by the candidates against the OMR grading,

will be verified by the NTA from the actual record and the same will

be updated in the data if challenges are found to be correct.

However, no intimation in the said regard will be sent to the

individual candidate.

12.5. Placing reliance on the aforesaid, it is submitted that this

Court may not exercise extraordinary jurisdiction under 226 of the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

Constitution of India.

13. Ms.Upadhyay, learned advocate appearing for the petitioners,

in rejoinder, reiterated the contentions raised earlier and submitted

that the petitioners herein have given the examination of Deputy

Section Officer and it cannot be expected of the petitioners to have

such fine knowledge with respect to the colours of an inkjet printers.

The question is such that it could not be known to the candidate

appearing for the Deputy Section Officer examination. It is

reiterated that the interpretation of the petitioners is that the

correct answer to question no.47 is option no.3 i.e. '4' and not

option no.1 as considered by the respondent nos.1 and 2 i.e. '3'.

14. Having heard the learned advocates appearing for the

respective parties, the following emerge.

15. The petitioners herein applied for the post of Deputy Section

Officer pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent no.1

on its administrative side being advertisement

no.HCG/NTA/01/2024[I]2 on 22.05.2024. The petitioners appeared in

the preliminary examination held on 27.10.2024. The respondent

no.2 released the provisional answer key on 15.11.2024, of stage-I

examination on the website i.e. https://exams.nta.ac.in/HCG/. Upon

perusal of the said public notice, which is placed on record in the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

petition at Annexure - E at page 39 and also duly produced by the

respondent no.2 herein at page 90 at Annexure-R2, the objections

were sought for by making application on or before 17.11.2024 upto

11:50 p.m. The said notice also provides that the same was

available upto 17.11.2024. It further provides that in case, the

candidates were to make representation on their recorded

responses after viewing their OMR answer sheets, the same can be

done by applying online at the mentioned site by paying non-

refundable fees of Rs.100/- for recorded response, challenge

through debit or credit card or internet banking upto 17.11.2024

upto 11:50 p.m. The representation made by the candidates against

the OMR grading will be verified by the NTA from the actual record

and the same will be updated in the data, if challenges are found to

be correct. However, no intimation in the said regard will be sent to

the individual candidate. It emerges from the record that the

petitioner no.2 raised objection qua the question no.47 before the

respondent no.2, which is not in dispute. The petitioner nos.1,3 and

4 never raised any objection to the aforesaid. The petitioners herein,

at page 9 of the petition, mentioned question no.47, which is in

dispute, as reproduced in paragraph 5 above. According to the

petitioners, the correct answer is option no.3 i.e. '4'. It is the case of

the petitioners that the inkjet printer has four colours i.e. cyan,

yellow, magenta and black. The relevant part of the question paper

is also produced at Annexure-D at page 38, the said question 47 is

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

reproduced above.

16. The respondent no.2 being an expert agency, has answered

the aforesaid, which is explained in paragraph 11 of the affidavit-in-

reply. The aforesaid explanation provides that the inkjet printers use

two types of ink cartridges. One containing only black and another

containing colour ink, comprising of cyan, yellow and magenta. The

explanation further provides that black is not classified as a basic

colour as it represents the absence of colour rather than

fundamental component of colour mixing.

16.1. It is apposite to reproduce the points, substantiating the

validity of the answer key declared by the NTA for question no.47,

which read as under:-

"Understanding of Inkjet Printers:

Inkjet printers use two types of ink cartridges one containing only black ink and another containing colour ink comprising cyan yellow and magenta. Black is not classified as a basic colour as it represents the absence of colour rather than fundamental component of colour mixing.

Significance of the Term "Colour Ink":

The phrase "colour ink" in the original question is crucial in determining the correct answer. The knowledge being tested pertains specifically to the

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

basic colours used in the colour ink of inkjet printers.

If the word "colour" is omitted from the Question formed, as done by the Petitioner, the question becomes ambiguous and deviates from its intended purpose."

16.2. It is further explained by the respondent no.2 that the

intentional omission of the word/text "colour" significantly changes

the meaning and scope of the question, thereby creating a

misconception. The omission of the word "colour" from the question

mentioned in the petition, fundamentally alters its interpretation. As

per the subject experts' evaluation, the correct answer key is option

no.1(3). The petitioners have contended that the correct answer is

option no.3 i.e. "4". The points substantiating the validity of the

answer key declared by the respondent no.2 for question no.47, are

elaborated as referred above.

17. It is apposite to refer to the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble

Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission,

Through Its Chairman & Another vs. Rahul Singh & Another.

reported in (2018)7 SCC 254 wherein paragraphs 9, 11, 13 and 14

read thus :

9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] , this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

Pre-Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that three of the key answers were wrong. The following observations of the Court are pertinent:

"16. ... We agree 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."

The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Government should devise a system for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters.

11. We may also refer to the following observations in paras 31 and 32 which show why the constitutional courts must exercise restraint in such matters: (Ran Vijay Singh case [Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , SCC p.

369)

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

"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

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

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."

13. As far as the present case is concerned, even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two Expert Committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26-member Committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

presumed that these Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is better or more correct.

14. In the present case, we find that all the three questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain textbooks. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts."

18. Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.

reported in (2021)2 SCC 309. Paragraphs 12 and 13 read thus :

"12. Mr Shariq Ahmed and Mr Shadan Farasat, learned counsel appearing for the contesting respondents argued that this Court should not interfere with the judgment of the Division Bench as no relief can be granted to the appellants who are fence sitters. They submitted that the High Court was right in upholding the judgment of the Division Bench dated 12-3-2019 [Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7416] by which the relief was restricted only to the appellants therein.

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

13. The point that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the revised select list dated 21-5-2019 ought to have been prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The appellants contend that the wait list also should be prepared on the basis of the 3rd Answer Key and not on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The 2nd Answer Key was released by RPSC on the basis of the recommendations made by the expert committee constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. Not being satisfied with the revised select list which included only a few candidates, certain unsuccessful candidates filed appeals before the Division Bench which were disposed of on 12-3-2019 [Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7416] . When the Division Bench was informed that the selections have been finalised on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key, it refused to interfere with the select list prepared on 17-9-2018. However, the Division Bench examined the correctness of the questions and the answer keys pointed by the appellants therein and arrived at a conclusion that the answer key to 5 questions was erroneous. On the basis of the said findings, the Division Bench directed RPSC to prepare the revised select list and apply it only to the appellants before it."

19. In the facts of the present case and considering the position of

law, as referred above, in the opinion of this Court, the dispute with

respect to answer key to question no.47 of the preliminary

examination conducted by the respondent no.2 on 27.10.2024 to

which, the provisional answer key was put to public notice on

NEUTRAL CITATION

C/SCA/1395/2025 JUDGMENT DATED: 22/04/2025

undefined

15.11.2024 providing the answer as option no.1 i.e. '3', is

considered and examined by the respondent no.2 through experts,

as stated in paragraphs 10 and 11 of the reply, as referred above.

The objections are not accepted. Clearly, the question no.47