# Gyan Prakash Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors

- **Citation:** (2023) 1 ILRA 1114
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2022-12-20
- **Case number:** Writ-A No. 8892 of 2022
- **Bench:** J.J. Munir
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/gyan-prakash-singh-v-state-of-u-p-ors-49303
- **Pages:** 12

## Headnote

A. Education Law - Selection/Objection to
provisional answer key - Uttar Pradesh
Education Service Commission Act, 1980 -
Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service
Commission (Procedure for Selection of
Teachers) Regulations, 2014 - So far as
revaluation of an answer sheet or script is
concerned, the examining body has no
right to revaluate, unless the statute
provides for it. However, if the statute is silent
about the power of revaluation or scrutiny of an
answer sheet or a script, the Court may
permit revaluation or scrutiny, if the key
answer is palpably and on the face of it,
wrong
or
absurd,
and
that
too, in
exceptional
cases.
So
far
as
the
correctness
of
the
key
answers
is
concerned, there is a presumption about
their correctness and the benefit of doubt
regarding the key answers, goes to the
examination authority, rather than the
candidate. (Para 10)

The Court should generally keep its hands
off, where it is a question of the correctness
of key answers based on expert opinion in
matters of public examination. Key answers
are to be presumed correct, particularly once
affirmed upon objection by a panel of
experts
accomplished
in
the
subject,
appointed by a selection authority, invested
with the power of selection by Statute. The
Court cannot be led into becoming a Court of
Appeal from the expert's opinion relating to
the answer key, on which evaluation is to be
done for a public examination. It is only in
cases of palpable absurdity or manifest error
demonstrable, without an elaborate process
of
technical
reasoning
in
the
relevant
subject, that the Court may, in very rare
cases, where convinced seek independent
expert opinion to rectify an erroneous key.
There could still be a few subjects or
matters where the key answer may be
so palpably
wrong that
the Court
cannot ignore it. Here, that is not the
case. The subject involved is an intricate
science, that is to say, Physical Chemistry
and lot of understanding of the subject
would go into deciphering the error that the
petitioner says exists, in the three impugned
key answers. (Para 13)
1 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1115
B. Source of Objections - No basis or
source of the objections to the three
impugned key answers has been disclosed
by the petitioner.
If there were any
seriousness about the objections that the
petitioner takes, he would have annexed in the
writ petition those authentic sources, which
could be extracts from reputed treatises or
textbooks on the subject, with their complete
reference, to support his objections. (Para 14)

The petitioner accepts the fact that the
material in support of the objections that
he submitted online to the Commission is
available on the website vis-Ã-vis the
answer to Question No. 44 alone. There is
no
retrieval
from
the
Commission's
website of the material filed by the
petitioner to support his objections to the
key answers to Questions Nos. 37 and 38.
The Court has to proceed on the premise that
before the Commission, objections to Question
No. 44 alone carried necessary material of
whatever worth, in support. This Court finds
that the objection to Question No. 37 has been
accepted by the panel of experts and the
answer given in the provisional answer key to
Booklet Series 'A', being 'D' has been rectified to
'A'. The correct answer, upon due consideration
of objections to question No. 37, besides 38 and
44 of Booklet Series-A, has been published in
the revised and final answer key on 11.02.2022.
The answer-sheets have been evaluated on the
basis of the final answer key. (Para 15)

C. It is trite that the Commission cannot
be held bound by the report of an outside
expert committee unless the Commission
itself, that is to say, their own experts are
ad idem with the opinion of the outside
expert appointed by the Court. Or else, the
Court, if it be within the Court's understanding,
a
factor
that
would
depend
on
many
circumstances, is of opinion that the report of
the outside expe

## Text

1114 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
very fairly submitted that he will have no
objection in case the railway authorities
pass order transferring him either to
RDSO or to Headquarters of Northern
Eastern Railways at Gorakhpur or to the
Headquarter of North Central Railways at
Allahabad.

22. We, thus, provide that keeping
in
view
the
overall
facts
and
circumstances of the case, specially the
fact that now it is only a year is left when
the respondent no.2-applicant shall retire
on his attaining the age of superannuation
on 31.12.2023, if the petitioners are not
inclined to post the respondent no.2applicant posted at MCF Raebareli, they
shall be free to post him at either on the
aforesaid three places, namely, RDSO
Lucknow or Headquarters of North
Eastern
Railways
at
Gorakhpur
or
Headquarters of North Central Railways
at Allahabad.

23. There will be no order as to cost.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1114
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE J.J. MUNIR, J.

Writ-A No. 8892 of 2022

Gyan Prakash Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Pranesh Kumar Mishra, Sri Amit Kumar
Tiwari

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Gagan Mehta

A. Education Law - Selection/Objection to
provisional answer key - Uttar Pradesh
Education Service Commission Act, 1980 -
Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service
Commission (Procedure for Selection of
Teachers) Regulations, 2014 - So far as
revaluation of an answer sheet or script is
concerned, the examining body has no
right to revaluate, unless the statute
provides for it. However, if the statute is silent
about the power of revaluation or scrutiny of an
answer sheet or a script, the Court may
permit revaluation or scrutiny, if the key
answer is palpably and on the face of it,
wrong
or
absurd,
and
that
too, in
exceptional
cases.
So
far
as
the
correctness
of
the
key
answers
is
concerned, there is a presumption about
their correctness and the benefit of doubt
regarding the key answers, goes to the
examination authority, rather than the
candidate. (Para 10)

The Court should generally keep its hands
off, where it is a question of the correctness
of key answers based on expert opinion in
matters of public examination. Key answers
are to be presumed correct, particularly once
affirmed upon objection by a panel of
experts
accomplished
in
the
subject,
appointed by a selection authority, invested
with the power of selection by Statute. The
Court cannot be led into becoming a Court of
Appeal from the expert's opinion relating to
the answer key, on which evaluation is to be
done for a public examination. It is only in
cases of palpable absurdity or manifest error
demonstrable, without an elaborate process
of
technical
reasoning
in
the
relevant
subject, that the Court may, in very rare
cases, where convinced seek independent
expert opinion to rectify an erroneous key.
There could still be a few subjects or
matters where the key answer may be
so palpably
wrong that
the Court
cannot ignore it. Here, that is not the
case. The subject involved is an intricate
science, that is to say, Physical Chemistry
and lot of understanding of the subject
would go into deciphering the error that the
petitioner says exists, in the three impugned
key answers. (Para 13)
1 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1115
B. Source of Objections - No basis or
source of the objections to the three
impugned key answers has been disclosed
by the petitioner.
If there were any
seriousness about the objections that the
petitioner takes, he would have annexed in the
writ petition those authentic sources, which
could be extracts from reputed treatises or
textbooks on the subject, with their complete
reference, to support his objections. (Para 14)

The petitioner accepts the fact that the
material in support of the objections that
he submitted online to the Commission is
available on the website vis-Ã-vis the
answer to Question No. 44 alone. There is
no
retrieval
from
the
Commission's
website of the material filed by the
petitioner to support his objections to the
key answers to Questions Nos. 37 and 38.
The Court has to proceed on the premise that
before the Commission, objections to Question
No. 44 alone carried necessary material of
whatever worth, in support. This Court finds
that the objection to Question No. 37 has been
accepted by the panel of experts and the
answer given in the provisional answer key to
Booklet Series 'A', being 'D' has been rectified to
'A'. The correct answer, upon due consideration
of objections to question No. 37, besides 38 and
44 of Booklet Series-A, has been published in
the revised and final answer key on 11.02.2022.
The answer-sheets have been evaluated on the
basis of the final answer key. (Para 15)

C. It is trite that the Commission cannot
be held bound by the report of an outside
expert committee unless the Commission
itself, that is to say, their own experts are
ad idem with the opinion of the outside
expert appointed by the Court. Or else, the
Court, if it be within the Court's understanding,
a
factor
that
would
depend
on
many
circumstances, is of opinion that the report of
the outside experts shows the key answers
approved by the Committee to be palpably
wrong without a detailed process of reasoning,
may extend relief by holding the answer key to
be wrong. (Para 23)

D. The exigencies of an examination to
select
candidates
to
public
posts
cannot be kept indefinitely under the
shadow of uncertainty nor can it be
made to vary endlessly as that would
impede timely selection to public posts
with finality attached to the process.
There is no reason for this Court to await
the outcome of the Commission's response
in another matter, may be involving the
same issue with regard to one question.
(Para 24)

There have been sufficient safeguards
observed by the Commission in scrutinizing
the probity of their answer key, on the
basis of which selections have been held.
These should not be exposed to a lingering
uncertainty. It must be noted that even if
there is some doubt about the key answer
to one or the other of the impugned
answers, on account of some material
based on an outside expert's opinion, the
doubt has to be resolved in favour of the
examining body. (Para 25)

Writ petition dismissed. (E-4)

Precedent followed:

1. Ran Vijay Singh & anr. Vs St. of U. P. & anr.,
(2018) 2 SCC 357 (Para 10)

2. Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission
through its Chairman & anr. Vs Rahul Singh &
anr., (2018) 7 SCC 254 (Para 11)

3. Kanpur University through Vice-Chancellor &
anr. Vs Samir Gupta & anr., (1983) 4 SCC 309
(Para 11)

4. High Court of Tripura Vs Tirtha Sarthi
Mukherjee & anr., (2019) 2 Scale 708 (Para 12)

(Delivered by Hon'ble J.J. Munir, J.)

The petitioner is aggrieved by his nonselection as an Assistant Professor in the
subject of Chemistry by the Uttar Pradesh
Higher Education Service Commission,
Prayagraj ("the Commission" for short).
Advertisement No. 50 dated 15.02.2021
was issued by the Commission inviting
applications for selection of Assistant
1116 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
Professors, who would be appointed to
aided non-government colleges, engaged in
imparting higher education. The petitioner,
apparently eligible for the post, applied in
response. The selection was to be made
through a written examination, followed by
an interview of those candidates selected
there. The petitioner was allotted Roll No.
5007000283 by the Commission and called
to write his written examination on
30.10.2001. The petitioner appeared and
participated in the written examination on
the scheduled date, time and venue. It is his
case that Question Booklet Series 'A' was
allotted to him. The petitioner says that
after he had appeared in the written
examination, the provisional answer key
was published by the Commission on
10.12.2021 and objections were invited to
the key answers by the candidates, on or
before 18.12.2021. The date for objections
to the key answers was extended. The
provisional answer key has been placed on
record by the petitioner.

2. The petitioner had objections with
regard to the answers shown in the
provisional answer key to Questions Nos.
37, 38 and 44 of Question Booklet Series
'A'. He submitted objections online to the
Commission on 13.12.2021, that is to say,
within time. The petitioner has also
annexed his objections as Annexure No. 5
to the writ petition. The Commission issued
a revised and final answer key on
11.02.2022, after considering objections by
the candidates. Objections to two questions,
that is to say, Questions Nos. 9 and 58 of
Question Booklet Series 'A' were sustained
and the questions, deleted. In consequence,
common marks were allotted to all
candidates, including the petitioner, in
relation to the aforesaid Questions. But, the
petitioner's grievance is that his answers at
the written examination were evaluated
without
deleting
the
impugned
key
answers, to which he had objected, carried
in Question Booklet Series 'A'. The result
of the written examination was declared on
17.02.2022, wherein the petitioner was
declared
successful
and
called
for
interview. It is asserted that different cut-off
marks for the purpose of interview category
wise (i.e. Gen., OBC, SC etc.) were
declared by the Commission. The petitioner
participated in the interview on 26.03.2022
held by the Commission. The final select
list (common list) was declared by the
Commission on 13.05.2022 for the post of
Assistant Professor in Chemistry (Subject
Code 70). The final list was declared based
on the marks earned in the written
examination and the ensuing interview by
the Commission, but the entire selection
exercise was carried out without rectifying
the three incorrect key answers, to which
the petitioner had objected, to wit, key
answers to Questions Nos. 37, 38 and 44 of
Question Booklet Series 'A'.

3. It is the petitioner's case that he
belongs to the Other Backward Class
("OBC" for short) Category and had
applied in the relevant category for the post
in question. The petitioner says that he had
secured 138.72 marks in the written test in
the OBC Category and the cut-off marks
for the OBC Category, entitling a candidate
to interview, was 134.64. It is urged that
each of the questions carried two marks.
The two questions that were acknowledged
as wrong on objections by other candidates,
led to an addition of 2.04 marks to the
petitioner's
score
in
the
written
examination. It is the petitioner's assertion
that he calculated his score, as per the
revised answer key, comparing it to his
Optical Mark Recognition ("OMR" for
short) Sheet for all that he had correctly
answered. It shows that he answered 68
1 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1117
questions correctly, to which 2.04 marks for
the wrong questions were added, leading
him to earn 138.72 marks in the written
examination. There is some grievance made
to the effect that two candidates, to wit,
Naveen
Prakash
Verma
(Roll
No.
5007001169) and Sanjeev Kumar (Roll No.
5007000563) who had also applied under
the OBC Category, were selected and
shown at Serial No. 36 and 37 of the
impugned
final
selection
list
dated
13.05.2020.
But,
the
petitioner
was
arbitrarily excluded. The petitioner says
that in case the three impugned answers in
the answer key, to which he had objected
when the provisional key was published,
were rectified, upon proper determination
by experts, with the aid of renowned
textbooks, it would entitle him to the
addition of three marks. If that were done,
he would be selected.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed
on behalf of the Commission, where the
entire procedure for selection adopted by
the Commission has been spelt out. It is
averred that 2002 posts of Assistant
Professor in various private-aided colleges
across the State have been advertised by the
Commission vide Advertisement dated
15.02.2021.
The
Commission
is
a
specialised
body
to
undertake
such
selections, constituted under the Uttar
Pradesh Education Service Commission
Act, 1980 (for short "the Act of 1980"). The
procedure for selection by the Commission
applicable in this case is governed by the
Uttar Pradesh Higher Education Service
Commission (Procedure for Selection of
Teachers) Regulations, 2014 (for short, "the
Regulations of 2014") and the Uttar
Pradesh Higher Education (Procedure and
Conduct of Business) Rules, 2014 (for
short, "the Conduct of Business Rules,
2014"). It is averred that to maintain
impartiality of evaluation at the interview,
the result of written examination is
disclosed after preparation of the final
examination result. It is not available to the
Interview Board. The petitioner obtained
138.78 marks in the written examination
and 24 marks in the interview. He, thus, got
an aggregate of 162.78 marks. The last
selected candidate in the OBC Category,
Sandeep Kumar, secured 165.78 marks and
the last waiting-list candidate in the OBC
Category, Surjit Singh, secured 162.98
marks.
It
is
emphasized
that
the
Commission does not have any provision
for the re-evaluation of answer sheets.
Various provisions under the Regulations of
2014 and the Conduct of Business
Regulations, 2014 have been mentioned in
the counter affidavit, all of which are
directed to show that the Commission
selects those who set the question paper
and moderate it from amongst men of high
qualification and professional experience in
the
relevant
subject.
The
panel
of
examiners and experts, whose services are
secured by the Commission, are an
independent body with high professional
skills in the relevant subjects. Change to a
tentative answer key is only possible after
the experts of the Commission opine on the
matter. The Commission do not have the
power to revaluate or effect a change to the
answer key of their own. It is also the
Commission's
case
that
deletion
of
incorrect answer(s) is done after the
experts' opinion and benefit of the deleted
question is given to all candidates. The
formula to award marks to all candidates,
after deletion of the question/ questions
upon the experts' opinion, is as follows :

Total marks X total attempted right
questions

Total questions - deleted questions
1118 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES

5. The aforesaid formula has been
pleaded in Paragraph No. 24 of the counter
affidavit. There is an illustration of the
calculation also pleaded in Paragraph No.
25, which does need to be reproduced. It is
the Commission's case that the tentative
answer key was issued on 10.12.2021, to
which objections were invited from the
candidates. It is the Commission's further
case in the counter affidavit that upon
publication of the provisional answer key,
candidates
objected
almost
to
every
question in the booklet. The Commission
have annexed the disposal of all the
objections
received
from
candidates
relating to Question Booklet Series 'A' as
Annexure
CA-1.
The
opinions
for
accepting or rejecting an objection to the
provisional key answers, are indicated in
the fifth column of the report of experts,
that is signed by a panel of three of them.
The petitioner's objections to the three
impugned
answers
carried
in
the
provisional answer key have been rejected
by the panel of experts appointed by the
Commission
vide
their
report
dated
31.01.2022, have been rejected, which is on
record. The reasons have been indicated in
the report and also reproduced in Paragraph
No. 43 of the counter affidavit.

6. It is also the Commission's case
that
the
petitioner
has
nowhere
demonstrated the source or material, on the
basis of which he objects to the key
answers to Questions Nos. 37, 38 and 44 of
Question
Booklet
Series
'A'.
It
is
emphasized that the entire selection process
has been completed and the merit list
forwarded
to
the
Director,
Higher
Education, U.P. at Prayagraj for allotment
of colleges.

7. In Paragraph No. 18 of the rejoinder
affidavit, the petitioner has asserted that he
has annexed the extract of reliable and
authenticated books written by renowned
authors on the subject, in support of
objections to key answers relating to the three
questions, the key answers to which he
impugns, as Annexure RA-1. A perusal of
Annexure RA-1 shows that objections to key
answer relating to Question No. 37 is based
on a book titled "Chemistry Part II Textbook
for Class XII by the National Council of
Educational Research and Training, 202223". The objection to the key answer relating
to Question No. 38 is based on the authority
of a book "Chemistry by Peter Atkins Julio
Di Paula" and further, another book "Physical
Chemistry Revised and Enlarged Seventh
Edition by P.C. Rakshit". The objection to the
key answer relating to Question No. 44 is
based on the authority of a book titled
"Textbook
of
Physical
Chemistry
Thermodynamics and Chemical Equilibrium
(S.I. Units) Volume II by K.L. Kapoor". The
objection to the last mentioned question is
further sought to be buttressed on the
authority of "Advanced Physical Chemistry
[Textbook for B.Sc. (Part III and honours)
and
Postgraduate
Courses
of
Indian
Universities]" by D.N. Bajpayee and
published by S. Chand Company Private
Limited, New Delhi. In Paragraph No. 20
of the rejoinder affidavit, the petitioner has
stated that though he has objected to all the
three impugned key answers to Questions
Nos. 37, 38 and 44, with material in
support, that is to say, reliable and authentic
books on the subject submitted online, but
has proof about his objections being
supported with regard to Question No. 44
alone. It is averred in Paragraph No. 20 that
despite best efforts to secure copies of the
material submitted online in support of his
objections vis-a-vis the key answers to
Questions Nos. 37 and 38, the petitioner
could not succeed in retrieving it on the
Commission's website.
1 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1119

8. Heard Mr. Pranesh Kumar Mishra
along with Mr. Amit Kumar Tiwari, learned
Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. Gagan
Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for
respondents nos. 2 and 3.

9. It would be apposite to refer to the
provisional key answers relating to the
three
questions
published
by
the
Commission, the candidates' objection and
the disposal thereof by the Commission's
experts vide their report dated 31.01.2022.
It would be convenient to extract the same,
as shown in tabular form in Paragraph No.
43 of the counter affidavit, which, for the
record of it, has not been denied in
Paragraph No. 23 of the rejoinder affidavit.
The questions to which key answers have
been impugned, the objections thereto and
the disposal of the objections by the expert
committee, is shown below :

Sl.
No.
Ques.
Nos.
Ques.
Ans.
as per
key
Can
didat
es
Ans.
Expert
opinion
1.
37
फेहग्रलों
ग
ग्रबलयन
A
एवों
B
से
ग्रिया
कर
ऐखल्डहा
इड
लाल
रोंग
उत्पन्न
करते
हैं।
लाल
रोंग की
D
A &
B/
प्रश्न
गलत
इस प्रश्न
का
आय ग
द्वारा
ग्रदया
गया
उिर
(D)
गलत है।
जबग्रक
उिर
(A) सही
है
।
अभ्यथी
की
आपग्रि
उत्पग्रि
का
कारण
है?

(A)
Cu+1
आयन
(B)
Cu+2
आयन
(C) Cu
(D)
Cu+1
एवों
Cu+2
आयन ों
का
असमा
नुपातन
का
सोंज्ञान
ग्रलया
गया।
स्र त:
Vogel's
Textboo
k
of
Practica
l
Organic
Chemist
ry.
2.
38
ग्रनम्नग्रल
खित में
से ग्रकस
अग्रभग्रि
या हेतु
∆G0
का मान
िनात्म
क है?
(A)
प्रकाश
सोंश्लेष
ण
(B)
आक्सी
जन क
ओज नी
करण
(C)
अम ग्रन
D
A, B
& C
/
प्रश्न
गलत
इस प्रश्न
का ग्रदया
गया
उिर
(D) सही
है।
अभ्यथी
की
आपग्रि
का
सोंज्ञान
ग्रलया
गया।
सम्बखन्ध
त
सभी
आपग्रि
ग्रनरािार
है
एवों
ग्रनरस्त
1120 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
या का
ग्रनमािण
(D)
उपर
क्त
सभी
ग्रकये
जाने
य ग्य है।
स्र तः
Explana
tion
Attache
d.

3.
44
एक
रासाय
ग्रनक
अग्रभग्रि
या ह ने
में
एन्थैल्पी
(∆S)
द न ों
का मान
कम
ह ता
है। यह
ग्रिया
स्वेच्छ
या गग्रत
करेगी
यग्रद-

(
A) ∆H
= T∆S

(
B) ∆H
> T∆S
(C) ∆H
< T∆S
(D)
उपर
क्त
सभी
C
A &
B/
प्रश्न
गलत

इस प्रश्न
का ग्रदया
गया
उिर
(C) सही
है।
अभ्यथी
की
आपग्रि
का
सोंज्ञान
ग्रलया
गया।
सम्बखन्ध
त
सभी
आपग्रि
ग्रनरािार
है
एवों
ग्रनरस्त
ग्रकये
जाने
य ग्य है।

स्र
त:
Dr.
S.
P.
Jauhar
book

10. It must be remarked that the law
regarding revaluation of an answer booklet or
script and the selection of an answer key is
fairly well settled by now. So far as revaluation
of an answer sheet or script is concerned, the
examining body has no right to revaluate,
unless the statute provides for it. However, if
the statute is silent about the power of
revaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet or a
script, the Court may permit revaluation or
scrutiny, if the key answer is palpably and on
the face of it, wrong or absurd, and that too, in
exceptional cases. So far as the correctness of
the key answers is concerned, there is a
presumption about their correctness and the
benefit of doubt regarding the key answers,
goes to the examination authority, rather than
the candidate. In this regard, reference may be
made to the holding of the Supreme Court in
Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357,
where it is observed:

"30. The law on the subject is
therefore, quite clear and we only propose
to highlight a few significant conclusions.
They are:

30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation
governing an examination permits the reevaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of
an answer sheet as a matter of right, then
the authority conducting the examination
may permit it;

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
rationalisation" and only in rare or
exceptional cases that a material error has
been committed;
1 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1121

30.3. The court should not at all reevaluate or scrutinise 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."

11. Again, the question arose before the
Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Public
Service Commission through its Chairman
and another v. Rahul Singh and another,
(2018) 7 SCC 254. Following the law laid
down earlier by their Lordships in Kanpur
University, through Vice-Chancellor and
others v. Samir Gupta and others, (1983) 4
SCC 309 and Ran Vijay Singh (supra) it
was held in Rahul Singh (supra):

"12. The law is well settled that the onus
is on the candidate to not only demonstrate
that the key answer is incorrect but also that it
is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent
and no inferential process or reasoning is
required to show that the key answer is
wrong. The constitutional courts must
exercise great restraint in such matters and
should be reluctant to entertain a plea
challenging the correctness of the key
answers. In Kanpur University case [Kanpur
University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC
309] , the Court recommended a system of:

(1) moderation;

(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;

(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude
suspected questions and no marks be
assigned to such questions.

13. As far as the present case is
concerned, even before publishing the first
list of key answers the Commission had got
the key answers moderated by two Expert
Committees. Thereafter, objections were
invited and a 26-member Committee was
constituted to verify the objections and
after
this
exercise
the
Committee
recommended that 5 questions be deleted
and in 2 questions, key answers be
changed. It can be presumed that these
Committees consisted of experts in various
subjects for which the examinees were
tested. Judges cannot take on the role of
experts in academic matters. Unless, the
candidate
demonstrates
that
the
key
answers are patently wrong on the face of
it, the courts cannot enter into the academic
field, weigh the pros and cons of the
arguments given by both sides and then
come to the conclusion as to which of the
answers is better or more correct."

12. Of much relevance, again, is
guidance of the Supreme Court in High
Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarthi
Mukherjee and others, (2019) 2 Scale
708, where it has been opined by their
Lordships:

"23. In this case we have already noted
that the writ petition was filed challenging
the results and seeking re-valuation. The
writ petition came to be dismissed [Tirtha
Sarathi Mukherjee v. High Court of
Gauhati, 2012 SCC OnLine Gau 899 :
(2014) 1 Gau LR 811] in the year 2012 by
the High Court. The special leave petition
was dismissed [Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee v.
High Court of Gauhati, 2013 SCC OnLine
SC 1396] in the year 2013. The review
petition is filed after nearly 5 years. In the
interregnum,
there
were
supervening
development in the form of fresh selection.
While it may be true that the delay in filing
the review petition may have been
condoned, it does not mean that the Court
where
it
exercises
its
discretionary
jurisdiction under Article 226 is to become
1122 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
oblivious to the subsequent development
and the impact of passage of time. Even in
the judgment of this Court in Ran Vijay
Singh v. Rahul Singh [Ran Vijay Singh v.
State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1
SCC (L&S) 297] which according to the
first respondent forms the basis of the High
Court's interference though does not
expressly stated so, what the Court has laid
down is that the Court may permit revaluation
inter
alia
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 on the commission of
material error. It may not be correct to
characterise the case
as
a rare or
exceptional case when the first respondent
approaches the Court with a delay of nearly
5 years allowing subsequent events to
overtake him and the Court. We feel that
this aspect was not fully appreciated by the
High Court.

24. The review, it must be noted is not
a re-hearing of the main matter. A review
would lie only on detection without much
debate of an error apparent. Was this such a
case? It is here that we must notice the
argument of the appellant relating to
question in Paper III of the examination
alone, engaging the attention of the Court
for the reason that the first respondent
pressed this aspect alone before the High
Court. The
judgment
[Tirtha
Sarathi
Mukherjee v. High Court of Gauhati, 2012
SCC OnLine Gau 899 : (2014) 1 Gau LR
811] of the High Court in the writ petition
appears to bear out this submission of the
appellant. The issue relating to the anomaly
in the evaluation of Paper III has been
discussed threadbare in the judgment. The
view of the High Court has not been
disturbed by this Court. Despite this the
High Court in the impugned judgment
[Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee v. High Court of
Gauhati, 2018 SCC OnLine Gau 2060] has
proceeded to take up the plea relating to
questions in Part I and Part II and
proceeded to consider the review petition
and granted relief that too after the passage
of nearly 5 years. This suffices to allow the
present appeal.

25. Despite all this we would also
make a few observations on the merits of
the matter."

13. The above principles that have been
laid down by the Supreme Court would show
that the Court should generally keep its hands
off, where it is a question of the correctness
of key answers based on expert opinion in
matters of public examination. Key answers
are to be presumed correct, particularly once
affirmed upon objection by a panel of experts
accomplished in the subject, appointed by a
selection authority, invested with the power
of selection by Statute. The Court cannot be
led into becoming a Court of Appeal from the
expert's opinion relating to the answer key, on
which evaluation is to be done for a public
examination. It is only in cases of palpable
absurdity or manifest error demonstrable,
without an elaborate process of technical
reasoning in the relevant subject, that the
Court may, in very rare cases, where
convinced seek independent expert opinion to
rectify an erroneous key. There could still be
a few subjects or matters where the key
answer may be so palpably wrong that the
Court cannot ignore it. Here, that is not the
case. The subject involved is an intricate
science, that is to say, Physical Chemistry and
lot of understanding of the subject would go
into deciphering the error that the petitioner
says exists, in the three impugned key
answers.

14. It is of utmost importance that in
the writ petition, no basis or source of the
objections to the three impugned key
1 All. Gyan Prakash Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1123
answers
has
been
disclosed
by
the
petitioner. If there were any seriousness
about the objections that the petitioner
takes, he would have annexed in the writ
petition those authentic sources, which
could be extracts from reputed treatises or
textbooks on the subject, with their
complete
reference,
to
support
his
objections. It is in response to the
respondents'
objection
raised
vide
Paragraph No. 35 of the counter affidavit
that the petitioner has not demonstrated the
source of his objections to the impugned
key answers, that in the rejoinder affidavit,
some xerox copies of textbooks have been
annexed by the petitioner to substantiate his
objections.

15. The matter does not rest there.
The petitioner accepts the fact that the
material in support of the objections that he
submitted online to the Commission is
available on the website vis-à-vis the
answer to Question No. 44 alone. There is
no retrieval from the Commission's website
of the material filed by the petitioner to
support his objections to the key answers to
Questions Nos. 37 and 38. This Court
cannot go into this dispute whether, in fact,
before the Commission, along with his
objections to the three impugned key
answers,
the
petitioner
had
annexed
necessary material furnishing the academic
basis for the objections. The Court has to
proceed on the premise that before the
Commission, objections to Question No. 44
alone
carried
necessary
material
of
whatever worth, in support. From the
disposal of the objections by the panel of
experts shown in Paragraph No. 43 of the
counter affidavit, this Court finds that the
objection to Question No. 37 has been
accepted by the panel of experts and the
answer given in the provisional answer key
to Booklet Series ''A', being ''D' has been
rectified to ''A'. The correct answer, upon
due consideration of objections to question
No. 37, besides 38 and 44 of Booklet
Series-A, has been published in the revised
and final answer key on 11.02.2022. The
answer-sheets have been evaluated on the
basis of the final answer key.

16. The submission of the learned
Counsel for the petitioner that the opinion
of the expert committee appointed by the
Commission, on the basis of which the
final answer key has been drawn up, is not
supported by any reputed or authentic
Textbook,
or
Treaties
to
judge
the
correctness of the three impugned key
answers, does not appear to be tenable. A
perusal of the report of the expert
committee shows that the provisional
answer
key,
upon
publication,
was
scrutinized with reference to the candidates'
objections, including the petitioner.

17. So far as the key answer to
question No. 37 of Booklet Series-A is
concerned, the expert committee has
opined the answer given in the provisional
answer key to be wrong and chosen the
right answer as ''A' instead of ''D', given in
the provisional key. The basis of the
opinion is a certain Vogel's Textbook of
Organic Chemistry. This correction to the
provisional answer key by the Expert
Committee does not uphold the petitioner's
objection. The petitioner would, thus, be
incorrect still.

18. In so far as questions Nos. 38 and
44 are concerned, the provisional key
indicated the correct option for question
No. 38 of Booklet Series-A as ''D' and for
No. 44 as ''C'. The expert committee has
rejected the objections to the answers
indicated in the provisional answer key and
affirmed the same. In case of question No.
1124 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
38 of Booklet Series-A, the answer option
given has been justified on the basis of an
explanation attached by the committee of
experts. A perusal of the expert committee's
report dated 31.01.2022 annexed to the
counter affidavit shows that the committee
comprised of three Professors, to wit,
Professor Indra Prasad Tripathi, Professor
and Head Department of Chemistry,
Faculty of Science, Mahatma Gandhi,
Chitrakoot,
Satna,
Madhya
Pradesh;
Professor
Rana
Krishnapal
Singh,
Professor, Department of Chemistry and
Vice-Chancellor, Dr. Shakuntala Mishra,
Rastriya
Punarvas
Vishwa
Vidyalaya,
Lucknow and Professor Krishna Bihari
Pandey, Former Professor, Vice-Chancellor.
The name of Professor, Krishna Bihari
Pandey's University, where he taught, or
whereof he was the Vice-Chancellor, no
doubt, does not appear in the report. But,
given the profile of the three experts, this
Court has no reason to doubt that they are
experts in their field and upon their
attention being drawn to fallacies in the
provisional
answer
key,
would
have
carefully scrutinized the objections to
exclude wrong as well as ambiguous
answers.

19. So far as the last answer
impugned, that is to say, answer to question
No. 44 of Booklet Series-A is concerned,
the objection thereto has been rejected by
the expert committee founding its opinion
on a Textbook by Dr. S.B. Jauhar.

20. The learned Counsel for the
petitioner has very persuasively argued and
made an admirable effort to allure this
Court into understanding a little bit of
Physical Chemistry. He has elaborated
upon scientific reasoning to prove the final
key answers to questions Nos. 37, 38 and
44
of
Booklet
Series-A
wrong.
Unfortunately, for the petitioner, it is
beyond this Court's ken to directly engage
in the understanding of Advanced Physical
Chemistry. The law, of much binding
precedent, also does not permit us to
undertake that inquiry. The petitioner's
submission in this regard, therefore, cannot
be accepted.

21. As a last ditch of effort, it was
pointed out by the learned Counsel for the
petitioner that in a similar matter in Writ-A
No. 3372 of 2022, another learned Single
Judge of this Court vide order dated
05.05.2022 at the instance of the eleven
petitioners there, has referred for opinion
the correctness of the final answer key visa-vis questions Nos. 38, 41, 44, 45, 82 and
84 of Booklet Series-A to two experts, who
may be nominated by the Vice-Chancellor
of the Banaras Hindu University from
amongst the Senior Teachers of the
Physical Chemistry Department. The Court
had reserved judgment in this case on
10.06.2022, but noticing the aforesaid
feature, the case was posted for further
hearing on 01.12.2022. On 13.12.2022, it
was brought to the Court's notice that
experts from the Banaras Hindu University
have submitted a report dated 01.12.2022,
which is at variance with regard to the key
answers approved by the expert committee
of the Commission, vis-a-vis questions
Nos. 38 and 84 of Booklet Series-A.

22. The attention of the Court has
been drawn to the order passed by the
learned Judge on 18.11.2022 in Writ-A No.
3372 of 2022, which records the aforesaid
fact, granting time to the Commission to
file a supplementary counter affidavit. At
the further hearing on 13.12.2022, the
learned Counsel for parties have placed an
order dated 02.12.2022 passed in Writ-A
No. 3372 of 2022, where it has been
1 All. Khushboo Saxena Vs. State of U.P. & Ors.
1125
remarked by the learned Single Judge that
keeping in mind the principle that outside
expert's opinion may not prevail over the
expert's opinion of the Examining Body,
the Counsel for the Commission may file a
response
within
two
weeks.
The
Commission has been required to refer the
matter to its experts together with the report
from the Banaras Hindu University, before
a final stand was taken about the
correctness of the key answers to the six
questions involved in the aforesaid writ
petition. It must be noted that here of all
those questions, questions Nos. 38 and 44
are relevant; in fact, 38 alone, because the
experts from the Banaras Hindu University
have differed with the Commission's expert
committee. The hearing of Writ-A No. 3372
of 2022 has been adjourned to 13.01.2023.
In the circumstances, this Court did not
find it feasible to adjourn the hearing of the
matter and judgment was reserved.

23. It is trite that the Commission
cannot be held bound by the report of an
outside
expert
committee
unless
the
Commission itself, that is to say, their own
experts are ad idem with the opinion of the
outside expert appointed by the Court. Or
else, the Court, if it be within the Court's
understanding, a factor that would depend
on many circumstances, is of opinion that
the report of the outside experts shows the
key answers approved by the Committee to
be palpably wrong without a detailed
process of reasoning, may extend relief by
holding the answer key to be wrong.

24. This course has not been adopted
in this petition and there is no reason for
this Court to await the outcome of the
Commission's response in another matter,
may be involving the same issue with
regard to one question. This Court is of
opinion
that
the
exigencies
of
an
examination to select candidates to public
posts cannot be kept indefinitely under the
shadow of uncertainty nor can it be made to
vary endlessly as that would impede timely
selection to public posts with finality
attached to the process.

25. This Court is of opinion that in
the overall circumstances, there have
been sufficient safeguards observed by
the Commission in scrutinizing the
probity of their answer key, on the basis
of which selections have been held. These
should not be exposed to a lingering
uncertainty. As a parting remark, it must
be noted that even if there is some doubt
about the key answer to one or the other
of the impugned answers, on account of
some material based on an outside
expert's opinion, the doubt has to be
resolved in favour of the examining body,
as held in Ran Vijay Singh.

26. In the totality of circumstances,
this Court finds no merits in the present
writ petition. It fails and is dismissed.
----------
(2023) 1 ILRA 1125
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 19.12.2022

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MRS. SANGEETA CHANDRA, J.

Writ-A No. 18291 of 2021

Khushboo Saxena ...Petitioner
Versus
State of U.P. & Ors. ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Udayan Nandan, Sr. Advocate

Counsel for the Respondents:
C.S.C., Sri Abhishek Srivastava, Sri Anubhav
Singh, Sri Krishna Agarwal, Mrs. Usha Kiran