The Court dismissed a writ petition challenging the answer key for a CISF Constable-Drivers recruitment exam. Relying on Supreme Court precedents, the Bench held courts must presume answer keys correct and lack expertise to re-evaluate academic questions.
Writ petition dismissed; application made null and non-estimated as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
*** IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI** % Date of decision: January 22, 2024
(42) PRASHANT KUMAR VERMA
..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nimish Chib and Mr. Jatin Rana, Advs.
versus
UNION OF INDIA & ANR.
..... Respondents Through: Mr. Jaswinder Singh, Adv. Mr. Sukhwinder Singh, Adv. with SI Asif Eqbal, CISF & SI Prahalad, CISF
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V. KAMESWAR RAO HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SAURABH BANERJEE
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J. (ORAL)
CM APPL. 3765/2024 (for exemption)
Exemption allowed subject to all just exceptions.
Application stands disposed of.
W.P.(C) 903/2024
“In view of the premise stated hereinabove, it is most respectfully prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to:
a) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of any other nature or direction/order thereby declaring the answer-key dated
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 903/2024
Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:27.01.2024 15:49:23
Page 1
03.11.2023 as wrong, faulty and erroneous and further directing the respondents to issue a fresh answer key after carrying out the necessary corrections in the answer key and b) Issue a writ of mandamus or a writ of any other nature or direction/order directing the respondents to cancel the Result dated 21.12.2023 and thereafter issue a Final Result taking into consideration the fresh answer key to be released by the respondents and/or
c. pass any such other/further writ of any nature, direction/order as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case.”
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 903/2024
Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:27.01.2024 15:49:23
Page 2
the respondents had considered the objections in respect of three questions, favourably and rejected the objections qua five questions.
“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
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 903/2024
Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:27.01.2024 15:49:23
Page 3
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.”
(emphasis supplied)
Signature Not Verified
W.P.(C) 903/2024
Digitally Signed By:DHARMENDER SINGH Signing Date:27.01.2024 15:49:23
Page 4
or correctness of the answer key cannot be gone into unless the answer key is ex facie wrong.
“14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur ). Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations.
15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. held that the court should not reevaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows :
“31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedBy:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 903/2024 Signing Date:27.01.2024 15:49:23
Page 5
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
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedBy:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 903/2024 Signing Date:27.01.2024 15:49:23
Page 6
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.”
16. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the expert committee in its judgment dated 12-3-2019 [Bhunda Ram v. State of Rajasthan, 2019 SCC OnLine Raj 7416] . Reliance was placed by the appellants on Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission . In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case.”
(emphasis supplied)
CM APPL. 3764/2024
Dismissed as infructuous.
V. KAMESWAR RAO, J
SAURABH BANERJEE, J
JANUARY 22, 2024 /aky
Signature Not Verified
Digitally SignedBy:DHARMENDER SINGH W.P.(C) 903/2024 Signing Date:27.01.2024 15:49:23
Page 7
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the Court can direct the examination authority to correct an answer key and declare a fresh result in a recruitment examination.
Whether the Court can re-evaluate the correctness of questions and answers in an examination lacking academic expertise.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors.Distinguished¶35
Rajesh Kumar & Ors. etc. v. State of Bihar & Ors. etc., Civil Appeal Nos. 2525-2516/2013
Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors.Explained¶36
Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357 · Who else cites this
Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of RajasthanExplained¶54
Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309 · Who else cites this
PRASHANT KUMAR VERMA
UNION OF INDIA
V. KAMESWAR RAO
SAURABH BANERJEE
As recorded by the court registry
A petition under Article 226 of the Constitution asking a High Court to issue a writ against the State or a public authority in a civil matter.
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
