(Prayer: Writ appeal filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent to set aside the order dated 10.03.2025 passed in WP No. 6491 of 2025 and allow the WA and thus render justice.)

S.M. Subramaniam, J.

1. The present intra-court appeal has been instituted to assail the writ order dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P. No. 6491 of 2025. Writ petitioner is the appellant herein.

2. Appellant participated in the process of selection to the post of Assistant Surgeon (General). The controversy arose in the present lis is that Question No. 25 given by the authorities is ambiguous and the key answer is also incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, would mainly contend that in the context of Question No. 25, both answers 'A' and 'B' are correct. Therefore, marks ought to have been awarded to the appellant, since she had given the option ‘A’. As per the key answer, the correct answer is ‘B’.

4. Writ Court has elaborately considered the scope and nature of the questions, key answers and the legal position as well as the powers of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of U.P., and Others(2017 INSC 1209), the Apex Court held as follows:

                   “…

                   30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

                   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 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.”

6. In a recent judgment, in the case of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission v. Ashok Yadav and Others(2026 INSC 991), the similar issue was considered by the Apex Court and the following findings were made:

                   “…

                   19. Before we address the aforesaid issue, it would be useful to examine the scope of judicial review in adjudging the correctness of a key answer selected and published by the examining body holding a public examination.

                   20. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.6 this Court after considering earlier decisions culled out legal principles delineating the scope of judicial review while examining a challenge to the correctness of the key answer(s) and seeking reevaluation of the answer script. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgment are extracted below:

                   “30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

                   30.3. The court should not at all reevaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

                   30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

                   30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” (Emphasis supplied)

                   After holding as above, this Court added a note of caution for the courts while entertaining such matters and highlighted the adverse consequences of over interference with the examination results. Relevant observations in that regard are as under:

                   “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 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 the 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)

                   ………….

                   29. Misreading a question, or reading something into a question, often results in a wrong answer. Very often questions are framed to confuse a candidate so that only an alert mind picks up the requisite nuances of a question for rendering a proper answer. The examinee / candidate cannot say that the question ought to have been drafted like this or that. Therefore, while considering whether the question or answer is correct, the Court must only consider whether the question or answer as it stands is correct or not and not what it ought to have been. If the question and its answer, as they stand, do not suffer from a glaring mistake, the Court cannot hold that it should be read and understood as something else than what it actually is only because, in the opinion of the Court, it would have made more sense.”

7. The two Division Bench judgments in the case of Harvinder Singh Johal Vs. Registrar General, Hon’ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and Another (batch)(CWP No.28691 of 2019 and connected cases) and Shivraj Sharma Vs. Consortium of National Law Universities and Others (batch)(2025 :DHC:2838-DB) relied on by Mr.Arun Natarajan, learned counsel on behalf of the appellant, are running counter to the legal position settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court of India in the case of Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission v. Ashok Yadav and Others cited supra, and those two judgments cannot be cited as precedent for the purpose of substituting the views of the domain experts in conducting competitive examinations.

8. Therefore, the Writ Court has rightly formed an opinion that the issue raised would fall beyond the realm of powers of judicial review, and High Court cannot substitute the views of the domain experts.

9. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, the connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, are closed.