Courts Can Interfere With Expert Answer Key If It Is 'Palpably Erroneous'; Candidate Can't Be Penalised For Ambiguous Question: Gauhati High Court
The Gauhati High Court has held that judicial review is permissible where an answer key prepared by experts is shown, on the basis of authoritative and indisputable material, to be palpably erroneous, and that a candidate cannot be penalised for ambiguity in a question framed by the examining authority.
Justice Kaushik Goswami observed, "However, such deference is not absolute. Where it is demonstrated on the basis of authoritative and indisputable material that the answer key is palpably erroneous, and that no reasonable person possessing expertise in the subject would regard the prescribed answer as correct, judicial review would not be excluded. Equally well settled is the principle that an answer in an objective examination ought not to be declared incorrect by resorting to inferential reasoning or rationalisation. Interference is justified only where the error is manifest and admits of no reasonable controversy."
The observation was made while deciding a writ petition filed by one Partha Sarathi Shill, who challenged the Staff Selection Commission's final answer key in the recruitment examination for Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces.
The petitioner contended that although he had qualified all stages of the recruitment process, he was denied selection after 2½ marks were deducted because his answer to a question on the maximum length of the touch line in a football match was treated as incorrect. According to him, under the IFAB Laws of the Game, 120 metres was the correct answer to the question as framed and, if those marks had been awarded, he would have crossed the prescribed cut-off.
The respondents submitted that the tentative answer key had been published, objections had been examined by subject experts and the final answer key had thereafter been approved. It was therefore argued that no interference with the expert opinion was warranted.
Examining the issue, the High Court noted that the question simply referred to "a football match" and did not specify an international football match. On examining the IFAB Laws of the Game, the Court found that the maximum touch line for football matches generally was 120 metres, while 110 metres applied only to international football matches.
It observed, "The distinction is explicit and leaves no scope for ambiguity. Had the examining authority intended to test the dimensions applicable exclusively to international football matches, it was incumbent upon it to frame the question accordingly. The expression employed in the question is 'a football match', which is general in nature and cannot, by implication, be restricted to international football matches."
The Court further held, "The mere fact that 110 metres also appeared as one of the answer options cannot justify treating it as the only correct answer. The ambiguity, if any, arose solely because the question omitted to specify that it related to international football matches. In such circumstances, a candidate answering the question with reference to the general Laws of the Game cannot be penalised."
The Court also recorded that the Central Government Counsel fairly submitted that 120 metres was the maximum length under the general Laws of the Game, reinforcing its conclusion that the Commission's answer proceeded on an assumption not reflected in the wording of the question.
Holding that the petitioner had furnished the correct answer, the Court found that he had been wrongly denied 2½ marks and that, if awarded, his score would exceed the prescribed cut-off. It observed, "The mere fact that the recruitment process has since concluded cannot be permitted to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner. The respondents cannot derive any advantage from an error committed by them in prescribing an incorrect answer key."
Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to revise the petitioner's result by awarding him 2½ marks, treat him as having qualified in the recruitment process and take consequential steps for his appointment.
It further directed that, if no vacancy was available because the recruitment process had concluded, the respondents should consider accommodating him, including by creation of a supernumerary post, if permissible under the applicable statutory provisions, rules and executive instructions.
Case No.: WP(C)/280/2025
Case Title: Partha Sarathi Shill v. Union of India & Ors.
LL Citation: 2026 LiveLaw (Gau) 120