Challenge To Correctness Of Model Answer Key Maintainable, Not Same As Seeking Re-Evaluation: Delhi High Court
The Delhi High Court has held that a challenge to the correctness of a public exam's official answer key cannot be equated with a plea for re-evaluation of answer sheets, observing that courts are empowered to interfere where the suggested answers in an answer key are patently incorrect.
A division bench of Justices C. Hari Shankar and Om Prakash Shukla made the observation while setting aside an order of the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which had dismissed a UPSC Forest Service Examination aspirant's challenge to the official answer key without examining it on merits.
Petitioner, an OBC (Non-Creamy Layer) candidate, had appeared for the UPSC Forest Service Examination, 2022 but failed to qualify.
Before CAT, he challenged the official answer key for Questions 88 and 96 of the General Studies Paper-I, contending that the suggested answers were incorrect.
While the official answer key treated option (d) as the correct answer for both questions, Petitioner argued that the correct answers were options (c) and (b), respectively.
CAT however dismissed the original application by relying on earlier decisions holding that candidates do not have an absolute right to seek re-evaluation of examination papers.
Aggrieved, Petitioner approached the High Court.
Allowing the writ petition, the High Court observed that CAT had failed to appreciate the distinction between seeking re-evaluation of answer sheets and questioning the correctness of an official answer key.
"The petitioner was not seeking re-evaluation of examination papers. The petitioner was questioning the correctness of the suggested answers in the model answer key released by the authorities conducting the examination," it observed.
It further reiterated that there is no absolute prohibition on judicial scrutiny of answer keys.
Referring to the decision in Staff Selection Commission v. Shubham Pal & Ors. (2024), it observed that while courts would not interfere where the official answer is a plausible view, intervention is warranted if the answer key is demonstrably incorrect.
"Where, however, the answer is demonstrably unacceptable, the Court would definitely interfere ex debito justitiae."
The Court noted that CAT had not examined the petitioner's challenge to the two disputed questions on merits and had merely rejected it on the basis of precedents relating to re-evaluation.
As such, it remanded the original application for fresh adjudication.
Appearance: Dr. Anindita Pujari, Sr. Adv. with Mr. Shaileshwar Yadav and Miss. Radhika Mohapatra, Advs. for Petitioner; Mr. Raktim Gogoi, CGSC with Mr. Sanjay Pal, GP, Ms. Akshita Nigam and Mr. Kanhaiya Singla, Advs. for UOI. Mr. Ravinder Agarwal, Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, and Mr. Vasu Agarwal, Advs. for UPSC for Respondents
Case Title: Bisen Anshul Kumar v. Union of India & Anr.
Case no.: W.P.(C) 7786/2026