petitioner, the petitioner was not one of those candidates who were selected when the result was declared vide Result Notice No. 405 dated 24.06.2015. On 29.08.2013, the respondent no. 1 published the Answer Key in respect of the said examination held on 25.08.2013 after the conduct of the examination. The petitioner raised issues with regard to the answers given in the „Answer Key‟ in respect of five questions, namely at serial nos. 64, 94, 145, 190 and 197. He also suggested the answers which according to him were correct. The petitioner claimed that if he had been marked correctly in respect of the aforesaid five questions, he would have got selected. Before the Tribunal, the respondents were directed to file a short affidavit indicating the questions which were having defective answers as pointed out in various representations, which were considered by the expert body and also to indicate whether the petitioner‟s representations were also referred to the expert body. The respondents filed an additional affidavit stating that many representations against the alleged wrong answers in the „Answer Key‟, were received from unsuccessful candidates including the applicant/petitioner and they were sent for examination to the expert body. The finding returned by the expert body were that the answers in the „Answer Key‟ to question nos. 145 and 190 in D series were liable to be revised from „C‟ and „D‟ to „B‟ and „A‟ respectively.
