(Prayer: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the issuance of a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records relating to the Final Answer Key dated 26.12.2025 issued by the 1st respondents for the recruitment examination conducted on 9.11.2025 for the post of Grade II Police constable/Grade II Jail warder/Fireman, quash the same insofar as it relates to question Nos.6,7,13,31 and 52 and consequently direct the respondents to award appropriate marks to the petitioners revise his marks and rank accordingly.)

1. This writ petition has been filed to call for the records relating to the Final Answer Key dated 26.12.2025 issued by the 1st respondent in respect of the recruitment examination conducted on 09.11.2025 for the posts of Grade II Police Constable / Grade II Jail Warder / Fireman, to quash the same insofar as it relates to Question Nos. 6, 7, 13, 31 and 52 and consequently direct the respondents to award appropriate marks to the petitioners’ by revising their total marks and rank accordingly.

2. It is averred that pursuant to the recruitment notification, petitioners applied and appeared for the written examination conducted on 09.11.2025. After the examination, the respondents published the Preliminary Answer Key on 14.11.2025 in their official website and invited objections from candidates.

3. Upon verification of the Preliminary Answer Key, petitioners found that Question Nos. 6, 7, 13, 31 and 52 contained wrong answers, ambiguity, spelling mistakes and inclusion of out-of-syllabus question. Therefore, within the specified time, petitioners submitted their detailed objections enclosing standard textbook references and authoritative academic materials. However, it is their grievance that without properly considering the petitioners’ objections, the respondents published the Final Answer Key dated 26.12.2025 without correcting the answers to the above stated five defective questions. Hence, this writ petition has been filed seeking to quash the Final Answer Key dated 26.12.2025 insofar as it relates to Question Nos. 6, 7, 13, 31 and 52, and for a consequential direction to award appropriate marks, revise the petitioner’s total marks and rank, and grant all attendant benefits.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that due to erroneous Final Answer Key, the selection of the petitioners to public employment has been adversely affected as the disputed questions are based on incorrect statement, ambiguous questions and out-of-syllabus materials. Hence, it is the submission of the learned counsel for petitioners that marks ought to be awarded to the petitioners for such disputed questions as well as statement. He argued at length by pointing out each disputed questions viz., Question Nos. 6, 7, 13, 31 and 52. Since the issue revolves around the nature of questions and the answers to the said questions, it is necessary to advert to the disputed questions, which are extracted hereunder for ready reference:-

                  

                  

                  

5. In view of the above, he prayed for quashment of Final Answer Key dated 26.12.2025 insofar as it relates to Question Nos.6,7, 13, 31 and 52 as well prayed for allowing of this writ petition.

6. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents 1 and 3 submitted that the recruitment process was conducted in a fair and transparent manner. Upon publication of the Preliminary Answer Key, objections were invited. The 2nd stage of selection process was completed and the stage of selection has thus attained finality.

7. She further submitted that during the previous hearing date i.e., on 04.02.2026, this Court, granted an order of interim stay of publication of selection list and further directed the respondents to keep one post vacant in respect of petitioners category.

8. In obedience with the directions issued by this Court, she submitted an Expert opinion has been obtained with regard to the said disputed questions and based on the expert opinion with reference to Q. No.6, Preliminary key ‘A’ was revised to ‘C’ referring to relevant 9th and 10th Standard textbooks and marks have been awarded to all the candidates across the Board. Hence, she fairly admitted that marks will be awarded to petitioners and other candidates, who attempted Q. No.6.

9. Reiterating the contents of the counter affidavit and pointing out the expert opinion, she submitted her arguments in an elaborate manner with regard to other disputed questions viz., Question Nos.7, 13, 31 and 52.

10. Heard the learned counsel on either side and perused the materials placed on record.

11. The issue involved in the present writ petition relates to interference with the Final Answer Key alleged to have been determined on the basis of expert opinion.

12. The whole case of the respondents in finalizing the answer key on the basis of expert opinion and, therefore, it is claimed that expert opinion has to be adopted by this Court and the writ petition has to be dismissed. There could be no quarrel with regard to the said proposition that the Courts should not interfere with the expert opinion, but it is not as if it is not with a caveat. Questions, which are based on academic materials, the experts are the final authority and in respect of questions relating to General Knowledge, it is not merely the opinion of the experts, as General Knowledge would not fall with the domain of the experts.

13. Question No.6 relates to inhalation and exhalation by the plants. The initial choice of the respondents was shown as ‘A’. However, it is to be pointed out that the manner in which inhalation and exhalation of Oxygen and Carbon di-Oxide by plants differ based on the time of the day. While during sunlight, due to photosynthesis, plants inhale Carbon-di-Oxide and exhale Oxygen, whereas during night time, in the absence of sunlight, the reverse operation is taken up. However, the question which is framed for which answer is sought does not spell out the time of the day during which the plants inhale and exhale the particular gas. In view of the fact that the question is not properly worded and the expert had opined that answer to the said question would be ‘C’, the erroneous question framed cannot be put against the candidates to deny them marks for the same and, therefore, all the candidates, who had appeared for the examination, irrespective of the fact whether they have attempted the questions or not should be awarded marks. Therefore, for this question, the respondents are directed to award marks to all the candidates who had written the examination.

14. Coming to question No.7, the said question relates to General Knowledge (current affairs). The question is as to where the first rocket lauching station was created and the place where the second rocket launching station has been established. The question is as whether the commissioning of the first rocket launching station at Sathish Dhawan Space Centre at Sriharikota and the second centre at Kulasekarapattinam in Tuticorin District is correct. In this regard that the experts have based their opinion on certain articles in the newspapers and the statement of persons and it is not based on any material, which shows that the said view is right. However, at the end of the said opinion, under the undertaking clause, the experts have opined that it is based on their knowledge in academics, which cannot be correct for the reason that, the reason which has attributed to giving the answer key is that the said statement was said by an individual and that it was published in the Newspaper. Therefore, it cannot be held to be an expert opinion with which this court cannot interfere. Therefore, in the absence of any authoritative material on which the opinion is based, necessarily, the petitioners have to be awarded marks and, therefore, there will be an affirmative direction to the respondents to award marks to the petitioners for this question.

15. Insofar as question No.13 is concerned, the question relates to the accord entered into between India-Pakistan and the five policies that were accepted. However, the question proceeds on the line that instead of the five policies which is supposed to have been entered into, it has been shown as five robberies are supposed to have been entered into. In this regard, the opinion of the experts have been filed. However, this court is not entering into the opinion of the experts for the simple reason that the question itself is erroneous. When the question itself is erroneous, as there is a clear error in understanding the question, expert opinion as to its answer would be of no avail as the petitioners cannot be expected to read the mind of the appointing authority or interpret the question to the liking of the respondents and, therefore, when the question itself is wrongly worded or couched, the answer would have no relevance and, therefore, relying on the expert opinion for an answer would be an exercise in futility. Therefore, when the question itself is erroneously worded and leads to a different inference, the candidates, who have written the examination cannot be denied marks irrespective of the answer written by them. Therefore, for this question, the respondents are directed to award marks to all the candidates who had written the examination.

16. Insofar as question No.31 is concerned, the question relates to the rays that travels at the speed of light. In this regard, it is even the opinion of the expert that there are two correct answers in the array of answers, which have been given and that being the admitted position, there being no answer in the options, which shows that there are more than one right answer, the non marking or erroneous marking of answers by the candidates cannot be taken to hold that the answers given by them is wrong, as two answers are correct according to the opinion of the experts, which is shown in the choices and in the absence of a choice showing that more than one answer is correct, the marking of the candidates to any one of the answers cannot be held to be wrong and, therefore, all the candidates, who have attempted the said questions have to be given marks irrespective of the answer given by them to the said question. Therefore, for this question, the respondents are directed to award marks to all the candidates who had written the examination.

17. Insofar as Question No.52 is concerned, the question itself pertains to “Logical Analysis”. However, even a bare reading of the question shows the nature of materials that are referenced therein for arising at a logical inference. The question does not signify the different materials associated with the referenced sketch based on which answers have been given. The candidates are required to logically analyse the questions and put forth their answers. The manner and the thought process in analyzing the question by the candidates is material to finding out the correct answer. Though the preliminary answer key reflected the choice as ‘B, however, the expert had opined that the correct answer is ‘C’. Since it is a logical question, this Court cannot sit in scrutiny over the said logical question and it has to tag on with the opinion of the expert. Therefore, whoever has marked the answer as ‘C’ as opined by the experts, such candidates alone shall be provided with marks for the aforesaid question.

18. In view of the discussion made above, the writ petition stands disposed of with the following directions:

                   i) For Question No.6, the respondents are directed to award marks to all the candidates who had written the examination.

                   ii) For Question No.7, in the absence of any authoritative material on which the opinion is based, the respondents are directed to award marks to the petitioners for this question.

                   iii) For Question No.13, the respondents are directed to award marks to all the candidates who had written the examination.

                   iv) For Question No.31, the respondents are directed to award marks to all the candidates who had written the examination.

                   v) For Question No.52, whoever has marked the answer as ‘C’ as opined by the experts, the respondents are directed to award marks to such candidates alone who had marked the aforesaid choice.

                   vi) The respondents are directed to complete the exercise of awarding marks on the basis of the directions issued above and publish a fresh selection list and proceed with the process of appointment in accordance with law.

Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed. There shall be no order as to costs.