(Prayer: This W.P. is filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to consider annexure-g representation dated 22.10.2025 made by the petitioner to the respondent and reassess the questions no.86 and 98 at annexure-b preliminary examination - 2025, "a" series question paper and make necessary corrections in the annexure - e final answer key and extended benefit of the same to the petitioner in the interest of justice and equity and etc.,)

Oral Order:

1. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider his representation dated 22.10.2025 and reassess the question Nos.86 and 98 in respect of the preliminary examination-2025, 'A' series question paper and make necessary additions and corrections and extend the benefit.

2. (i)  The petitioner is one of the candidates who applied in response to a notification dated 10.02.2025 issued for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judges. The petitioner contends that the preliminary examination was conducted on 11.10.2025 and the provisional answer key was published on 13.10.2025 inviting objections. The respondent had fixed 15.10.2025 as the last date for filing objections. The petitioner filed objections in respect of question Nos.46 and 98. The final answer key was released on 16.10.2025, wherein the objection raised by the petitioner in respect of question No.46 was accepted. However, the objection relating to question No.98 was not accepted. The petitioner thereafter submitted another objection on 22.10.2025 in respect of question Nos.86 and 98. As the said objection was not considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

                  (ii)      The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that question No.98 was as follows:

                  "Q no.98. Mob Lynching is an offence under section

                  E.       117(4)

                  F.       103(2)(ii)

                  G.       Both (A) & (B)

                  H.       None of the above."

                  (iii)     He contends that the final answer key released by respondent discloses that the correct answers were option 'A' and option 'C'. He submits that he had selected option 'B' but the same was disallowed.  He further submits that if option 'C' is treated as correct answer, respondent while accepting option 'A' as the right answer must have also accepted option 'B', as the right answer as option 'C' comprised of both option 'A' and option 'B' as correct answers. He therefore submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of one mark in respect of question No.98.

                  (iv) In respect of question No.86, he contends that none of the options was the correct answer. However, the final answer key specified option 'D' as the correct answer. For the sake of convenience question No.86 is extracted below:

                  "Q No.86. The Principal of Vicarious Liability is found in which among the following offence?

                  A.       107 IPC

                  B.       153 IPC

                  C.       120B IPC

                  D.       34 IPC"

                  (v)      He contends that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short) cannot be the correct answer, as Section 34 of IPC relates to acts done by persons sharing a common intention, and the concept of vicarious liability is alien to Section 34 of IPC.  In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vasanth alias Girish Akbarasab Sanavale and Another Vs. State of Karnataka - 2025 SCC Online SC 337 where it was held that "the net result of the above discussion is that although Section 34 deals with a criminal act which is joint and an intention which is common, it cannot be said that it completely ignores or eliminates the element of personal contribution or the individual offender in both these respects. It is a condition precedent of Section 34 of IPC that the individual offender must have participated in the offence in both these respects. He must have done something, however slight, or conduct himself in some manner, however nebulous whether by doing an act or by omitting to do an act so as to indicate that he was a participant in the offence and a guilty associate in it. He must also be individually a party to an intention which he must share in common with others."

                  (vi)     He therefore, submits that the answer to question No.86 cannot be option 'D' and therefore, the key answer published was wrong and the petitioner must have been given the benefit by awarding grace marks as was done in respect of question No.76 and 97 of Version 'A'.

3. (i)  The writ petition is opposed by the respondent who has filed a statement of objections contending that the respondent had invited online applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to 158 posts of Civil Judges, pursuant  to  the  notification  dated  10.02.2025.  The  said notification was kept in abeyance under the supplementary notification dated 12.03.2025. Thereafter, by issuance of the notification dated 18.08.2025 the process contemplated under the notification dated 10.02.2025 was continued. It is stated that the selection process to the post of Civil Judge comprises an objective type preliminary examination, a main written examination and a viva voce. It is claimed that 10,069 candidates had applied for the post of Civil Judge. The petitioner had applied under the category III-A and was eligible to take the preliminary examination, which was conducted at Bengaluru, Dharwad and Kalaburagi on 11.10.2025. It is contended that after the completion of the preliminary examination, the provisional answer key was web-hosted on the official website of the High Court of Karnataka on 13.10.2025. All candidates were given an opportunity to file objections to the provisional answer key, if any, along with their justifications. Such objections were required to be filed by or before 06:00 pm on 15.10.2025.

                  (ii)      It is contended that   the petitioner  submitted objections to question Nos.46 and 98 of version 'A'.  It is statedthat as per the provisional answer key, the correct answer for question No.98 was option 'C'. Since objections were filed by the petitioner and other candidates in respect of this question, the same was placed before the committee for consideration. After detailed deliberations, the committee resolved to accept either option 'A' or 'C', as the final answer to question No.98 of version 'A'. It is stated that since there was a typographical error in option 'B', the same was not treated as the right answer. Similarly, as per the provisional answer key, the correct answer for question No.46 was option 'A'. The objections filed by the petitioner and other candidates in respect of this question were placed before the committee, which resolved to consider either option 'A' or 'B' as the final answer to question No.46. It is thus contended that the objections filed by the petitioner were duly considered by the respondent and changes were made to the answer key wherever found necessary.

                  (iii) Thereafter, the final answer key was web-hosted on the official website, and the results of the preliminary examination, along with the marks secured by the candidates, were  announced  on  the  official  website  of  this  Court  on 17.10.2025. Similarly, the evaluated OMR sheets were uploaded on the website and made available for the reference of the candidates. Out of 10,069 candidates, 980 were declared successful, 7428 were not successful and 1661 candidates were absent.

                  (iv) After the final answer key and the results of the examination were uploaded on the official website, the petitioner sent another email on 22.10.2025 again objecting to the final answer key in respect of question No.98 and raising an objection in respect of question No.86. It is submitted that the objection in respect of question No.86 was belatedly raised on 22.10.2025. It is further submitted that while the provisional answer key was web-hosted by the respondent, it was categorically informed to all the candidates that any objection received after 6:00 p.m., on 15.10.2025 would not be considered. Therefore, it is contended that the objection of the petitioner regarding question No.86 cannot be considered. It is submitted that the final answer key to question No.86 is correct, and accordingly, the petitioner is not entitled to any benefit.

                  (v) It is further submitted that under the Karnataka Judicial Service (Recruitment) Rules, 2004, the minimum marks required to qualify for the main examination is '50' for candidates belonging to the scheduled caste, scheduled tribes and persons with disabilities and 60 marks for candidates of other categories. The petitioner had applied under category III/A and was therefore required to secure at least 60 marks to qualify for the main written examination. As per the results of the preliminary examination, the petitioner secured 58 marks. It is contended that the present exercise by the petitioner is an attempt to "somehow gain two marks and qualify for the main written examination." It is also submitted that the deadline to pay the fee for the main written examination scheduled to be held on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025 had expired on 08.11.2025.

                  (vi) It is contended that the question paper for the preliminary examination was set by experts in the field. Based on the objections received and as recommended by the experts, the key answers to some questions were modified. It is claimed that the entire process of reviewing the key answers was undertaken meticulously. Therefore, it is contended that this Court cannot sit over the correctness of the key answers provided and the decisions taken by the committee.

                  (vii) It is also claimed that complete fairness and transparency was maintained in the conduct of the examination by the respondent. It is contended that merely because a few candidates are dissatisfied with the final key answers, the same would not vitiate the entire examination process. If, after careful consideration, the experts have suggested a particular answer, it is not open to the petitioner to contend that the key answer is incorrect or that the answer suggested by him is the correct one. Therefore, the respondent prays that the petition be dismissed.

4. (i) The learned senior counsel representing the respondent submitted that the answer to question No.98 was either option 'A' or option 'C' as "there was a typographical error in option B". He contends that the petitioner had selected option 'B' and was therefore, not entitled to any marks. He submits that the claim of the petitioner in respect of question No.86 cannot be considered as the objection was not raised within the time prescribed. He further contends that this Court should be slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters, and that an assessment of the question by the Court itself to arrive at the correct answer is not proper.

                  (ii) In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Anr. Vs. The State of Rajasthan and ors - Civil Appeal No.3649-3650/2020. He also referred to the judgment in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P. and  Ors. - Civil Appeal No.367/2017 wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court after considering various decisions on the subject held that: (a) if the statute, rule, or regulation governing an examination permits revaluation, then the authority conducting the examination may allow it; (b) if the statute, rule, or regulation does not permit revaluation, the Court may permit revaluation only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without inferential reasoning or rationalisation, and only in rare and exceptional cases, that a material error is committed; (c) the Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise answer sheets when it has no expertise in the matter, and academic issues should be left to academicians; (d) the Court should presume the correctness of the key answer and proceed on such presumption; (e) In the event of a doubt, the benefit must go to the authority rather than the candidate.

                  (iii)     The learned Senior Counsel therefore submitted that this Court should not re-evaluate the answers given by the petitioner in view of the final key answers accepted by the Committee. He referred to the judgment of Coordinate bench of this Court in the case of Dr. Praveen Kumar I Kusubi Vs. Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Bangalore and others - ILR 2003 KAR 805.  He further contended that if any indulgence is shown to the petitioner, the entire process would have to be revisited and all the answer scripts have to be reconsidered which would adversely affect the recruitment process.

5. In reply, the learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the provisional answer key was released on 13.10.2025 and the candidates were permitted to submit objections within 15.10.2025. He submitted that the petitioner was therefore left with very less time to analyse the provisional key answers. He submitted that though the respondent accepted the objections raised in respect of question No.46, the objections relating to question No.98 were rejected. He submitted that if according to the respondent, the answer to question No.98 would be either option 'A' or option 'C', it is unclear as to how option 'B' cannot be a correct answer. He submits that the respondent has now in the statement of objections stated that there was a typographical error in respect of option 'B'. He submitted that if there was such an error, the respondent must have indicated that option 'A' as the only correct answer. He submitted that the petitioner is entitled to challenge the rejection of the objection in so far as question No.98 is concerned and that a mere delay in raising an objection in respect of question No.86 cannot defeat the petitioner's right. He further submitted that the prescribing time within which the objections have to be filed is only by way of notification which is not traceable to any statutory provision.

6. I have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned senior counsel for the respondent.

7. The notification was issued by the respondent inviting applications from eligible candidates for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judges. The petitioner was one among the many candidates who appeared for the preliminary examination held on 11.10.2025. The provisional key answers were web-hosted by the respondent on 13.10.2025 and time was granted upto 6:00 p.m. on 15.10.2025 for filing objections. The petitioner submitted objections in respect of question Nos.46 and 98. After consideration of the objections, the final key answers were published on 16.10.2025. The petitioner's objection in respect of question No.46 was accepted, while, his objection in respect of question No.98 was rejected. The petitioner, who had secured 58 marks did not qualify for the main written examination, as the cut-off marks was 60 marks.

8. There can be no dispute that the Courts should not sit in judgment over the evaluation made by experts nor undertake an assessment of the questions to arrive at what may be the correct answers. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court considered cases wherein unsuccessful candidates  in  written  examinations  and  interviews  had questioned the evaluation. A learned Single Judge had examined the questions and held that a candidate cannot be made to suffer for the fault of the examining body and therefore directed re-examination. The appeal filed before the Division Bench was dismissed. Thereafter some candidates whose names did not appear in the final select list challenged the order of learned Single Judge. The Division Bench referred 07 disputed questions to a one-member expert committee and eventually directed fresh evaluation of answer scripts based on the expert's report. In the meanwhile, a third evaluation was completed by the Board. In those circumstances, the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the revaluation cannot be permitted unless the statute provides for it, and where it does not, revaluation may be permitted only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any inferential reasoning or rationalisation, that a material error is committed.

                  (underlining is by Court)

9. In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), the written examinations in General Knowledge and Social Studies were conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission. The  first  answer  key  was  released  on  06.02.2018  and  the results were declared. On 25.04.2018, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jaipur Bench referred three questions in the first answer key for reconsideration by an expert committee. Subsequently, on 05.05.2018, a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Judicature for Rajasthan, Jodhpur Bench, referred eight additional questions for reconsideration by an expert committee. The expert committee constituted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission revised the answers to two questions in Social Science and one question in General Knowledge. A revised merit list was published on 17.09.2018, in which the petitioners before the Hon'ble Apex Court did not find place. The judgment of the Jodhpur Bench was challenged before the Division Bench on the ground that the learned Single Judge had examined the correctness of five disputed questions on his own without the aid of experts. The Division Bench after considering the matter, directed revision of the select list and extended the benefit of such revision only to the appellants before it. This decision was challenged before the Hon'ble Apex Court. In the meanwhile, the Jaipur Bench directed deletion of ineligible  candidates  from  the  select  list  and  issuance  of  a revised list. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission thereafter published the third answer key on 08.04.2019, but the benefit of such revision was restricted only to the appellants before the Division Bench. The Hon'ble Apex Court while answering the order passed by the Division Bench held that the Courts should be slow in itself revaluating and scrutinising the questions, as it lacks the academic expertise and such matters are best left to the domain of experts.

10. In Dr. Praveen Kumar I. Kusubi (supra), the petitioners had passed the MBBS examination and were eligible to appear for the PG Entrance Test, 2003. The university released the key answers, some of which were found to be incorrect. Therefore, some of the aspirants challenged the key answers, and the university accepted the mistake and allotted full marks. Those candidates who were not satisfied with the rejection of objections in respect of some other questions submitted a further representation to the university, which did not take any action. It was in those circumstances that, they approached this Court. A Coordinate Bench of this Court held that  "when  question  papers  are  set  and  key  answers  are prepared by experts from outside the university, no motive could be attributed to such experts. It was observed that to err is human and even a teacher may commit mistakes". It was further held that in academic matters, the decision of the University is final, and the Court neither has the expertise nor the infrastructure to examine the correctness of such decisions. This Court cannot sit in judgment over such findings or reassess the material on record to arrive at its own conclusion as if it were an appellate Court.

11. The judgments of the Hon'ble of Apex Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ran Vijay Singh are clearly distinguishable, as those decisions related to written examinations where the answers furnished by candidates were descriptive in nature. In Dr. Praveen Kumar, this Court held that it did not have the expertise to re-evaluate the answers given by candidates. It is no doubt true that when the Court examines technical academic issues by referring to textbooks, it would be indulging in an inferential exercise

12. In the present case, the examination consisted of objective-type questions. The questions which were the subject matter of objection raised by the petitioner are not beyond the comprehension of this Court but is something that we deal everyday in Courts and does not require the wisdom of a omniscient to answer it.

13. The respondent has stated in its objection that option 'B' to question No.98 was a typographical error. However, the final key answer to question No.98 is indicated as option 'A' and also as option 'C'  which includes option (A and B). If, according to the respondent, option 'B' was also a correct answer, there is no justification for denying the benefit to the petitioner.

14. In so far as question No. 86 is concerned, as rightly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, the time given for filing objections to the provisional key answers was less than 48 hours and the right of the petitioner cannot be snuffed out. The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Rajkumar Girijoya Vs. Delhi Subordinates services selection Board - (2016) 4 SCC 754 while examining the issue of whether a candidate who appears in an examination under OBC category and submits the certificate after the last date mentioned in the advertisement is eligible for selection to the post reserved under OBC Category or not. The Court categorically held that such situations cannot be examined in a pedantic manner, the candidature cannot be merely rejected on account of late submission of the certificate. Therefore, assuming that the delay in raising objections may affect other candidates who were allotted marks, that does not come in the way of this Court exercising the power of judicial review of the action of the respondent. The answer to question No.86 does not require the brilliance of an expert, to hold that the principle of vicarious liability is not found in Section 34 of IPC. Therefore, option 'D' which is reflected as the final key answer, is not the correct answer, as Section 34 of the IPC only deals with common intention and does not even remotely suggest of vicarious liability. As a result, the petitioner deserves to be awarded grace marks as is done in respect of question Nos.76 and 97.

15. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the respondent that granting benefit to the petitioner would open a pandora's box, though appears probable at first blush, cannot be accepted in the facts of this case. It is noticed that the present petition is perhaps the only writ petition filed by an unsuccessful candidate. Therefore, the apprehension of the respondent could be addressed by restricting the benefit only to the petitioner, since all other unsuccessful candidates have accepted the result. In this regard, it is profitable to refer to the judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Ashok Kumar and Others Vs. Depinder Singh Dhesi and others - 2019 (8) SCC 280 wherein it was held that:

                  "14.    It was, therefore, clear that the candidates who, on the strength of such degrees awarded through distance education mode, had attained a particular level in their career or were enjoying certain benefits as on the date of the judgment- and if they pass the examination, those benefits would stand restored. If the candidates could clear the examination in the first attempt itself, there would not even be any break in continuous enjoyment of those benefits or facilities. The idea was, candidates should not stand deprived of the status that they were enjoying as on the day of the Judgment- provided the candidates could prove their worth and ability.

15. But if, the candidates concerned had not attained any particular status, as on the date when the judgment- was passed, the width of the directions was not to confer any additional advantage which was not even enjoyed as on the date. It was not the idea to hold the candidates to be entitled to certain additional benefits which the candidates were, as a matter of fact, not even enjoying on the date of the judgment. If the degrees stood restored in terms of the directions in the judgment- and the Order?, the candidates would certainly be eligible to such entitlements as are available in accordance with law, but "restoration" would only be of those benefits, which they were enjoying as on the date of the judgment."

16. Before parting it is necessary to emphasise observation of the Apex court in Ran Vijay Singh (Supra) that this Court is considerate and aware that an error committed by the examination authority, results in a situation where the complete body of candidates suffers, and though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. Therefore, 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.

17. In view of the above, the petition is allowed. The respondent is directed to assign two marks to the petitioner in respect of question No.98 and question No.86. As a result, the petitioner would qualify to take up the main examination. Hence, he shall be permitted to pay the prescribed examination fee for the main examination scheduled on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025 and he shall be permitted to write the written examination. The respondent shall take all steps to enable the petitioner to write the examination scheduled on 06.12.2025 and 07.12.2025.