Not For High Court To Re-Examine Answer Keys Even In Judicial Service Exams : Supreme Court

The Supreme Court on Monday directed the Jharkhand High Court to constitute an expert committee to re-examine the correctness of 3 questions that appeared in the State Civil Judges (Junior Division) Exams. The Court partly set aside the impugned High Court order which found the answers to some of the questions to be incorrect. 

The bench of CJI Surya Kant and Justices Joymalya Bagchi and NV Anjaria was hearing a plea by Jharkhand Public Services Commission (JPSC). 

The JPSC has challenged the High Court's order, which allowed a writ petition challenging the correctness of answers to 3 questions in the exams for the appointment of Civil Judges (Junior Division). 

The primary grievance was about three questions–Nos. 8, 74, and 96 in Series A–which the petitioners argued were either answered incorrectly or revised arbitrarily by the JPSC.

At the outset, the bench remarked that if the High Court found the revised answers under the need for reconsideration, it should have remanded the matter to the Commission, asking it to re-examine the answer key, instead of intervening itself. 

The JPSC mainly contended that the High Court did not have the jurisdiction to sit in examination of the contentious question-answers. 

Agreeing to the same, the bench noted that while the High Court judges may have adequate legal experience, they cannot assume to themselves the role of super-examinor/ expert. The relevant part of the order stated : 

"It may be true that the subject examination pertains to recruitment to judicial services and as such the Hon'ble Judges of the High Court, keeping in view their vast experience on Bar and Bench, are expected to have a better understanding and appreciation of the questions that were put to the candidates in the examination. However, even if it is accepted as an undisputed fact, the question remains whether the power of judicial review in the matter of re- evaluation, re-appreciation, or re-consideration of the answer key would apply uniformly, irrespective of the nature of the examination. In this regard, it seems to us that the High Court cannot assume the role of super-examiner/subject expert, and such an exercise should ordinarily be left to the domain experts."

The Court proceeded to partly set aside the decision to the extent of the High Court deciding on the correctness of the answer key. It observed : 

"The stance taken on behalf of the Public Service Commission clearly indicates that the answer key was duly vetted by the High Court on the administrative side. If that is the case, it is necessary for the High Court, while exercising its judicial authority, to have referred the matter to the respective Committee of the High Court, as well as to the Public Service Commission, for the formation of an additional Committee comprising subject experts, including eminent law professors as domain field experts, with one of the members being a Professor of English, to provide assistance and guidance. This would enable such experts to reassess the answer key concerning questions nos. 8, 74, and 96. The High Court ought not to have assumed this responsibility while exercising its power of judicial review."

The bench further directed to refer the three questions to a committee that the High Court shall constitute on the administrative side and then send its opinion after re-examination of the questions back to JPSC for necessary action, within 2 weeks. 

What was held by the High Court

In Question 8, which required the candidates to choose the correct English sentence, the petitioners contended that Option (A): “More than one boy was absent from the class,” was the grammatically correct sentence. However, the JPSC in its revised key marked Option (B): “More than one boy were absent from the class” as correct. The Court, accepting the petitioners' contention, held, “without a doubt, Option (A) is the correct answer and Option (B) given by JPSC cannot be said to be correct.”

The second disputed question, Question 74, was based on the Supreme Court's ruling in Ashwini Kumar Upadhyay v. Union of India, W.P. (C) No. 943/2021, which asked as to which IPC offences were mentioned by the Supreme Court in the said order.

JPSC had marked Option (D) i.e., Sections 153A, 153B, 295A, and 506, as the correct answer. The petitioners pointed out that Section 506 of the IPC was not mentioned in the Supreme Court order, whereas Section 505 was. Upon examining the original judgment, the Court agreed with the petitioners.

The Court also rejected the argument of the JPSC that the word “etc.” used in the Supreme Court's order could be read to include Section 506. It said, “if such an interpretation is given, the word 'etc.' would cover every Section in the Indian Penal Code, and that could not have been the intention of the Supreme Court in the above judgment.”

Moving to Question 96, which was related to the law of agency under the Indian Contract Act, the petitioners argued that JPSC had initially indicated Option (C) to be the correct answer, but later changed it to Option (A). The petitioners further argued that Option (A) was in fact a correct legal statement and should not have been identified as incorrect. They submitted that both Options (B) and (C) were legally incorrect and should have been acceptable. The Court agreed and held, “Option (A) given by the JPSC is wrong.”

The Court also upheld the petitioners' argument that both Option (B), which incorrectly stated that only persons of majority could be agents, and Option (C), which incorrectly claimed that the authority of agents must be expressed in writing, were wrong as per Sections 184 and 186 of the Indian Contract Act, respectively.

The Court said, “petitioners are right in contending that both options (B) and (C) would be the correct answers to Question No.96.”

After examining each of the three questions, the High Court concluded that the answers given by JPSC in the revised answer key were clearly erroneous and warranted correction.

Accordingly, the High Court allowed the writ petitions to the extent of these three questions and directed JPSC, “to give one mark to the persons who answered to Option (A) in Question No.8 in Booklet A and delete Question No.74 and Question No.96 in Booklet A from consideration.”

Case Details : JHARKHAND PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISISON vs. THE STATE OF JHARKHAND| C.A. No. 001455 / 2026 

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 138

Click Here To Read/Download Order