Summary
The Supreme Court restored the UPPSC’s expert-reviewed answer key for its preliminary examination. A candidate challenging a key must demonstrate a patent, glaring error without extended reasoning. Here the disputed answers required lengthy analysis, competing views existed and textbooks supported the Commission. The High Court exceeded the proper scope of review by substituting its academic assessment for that of the expert committees.
Issues
- When may a court interfere with an expert-reviewed examination answer key?
- Whether the High Court could alter the three disputed questions on the reasoning adopted here.
Held
- An answer key is presumed correct. A challenger must show a glaring error apparent without an inferential or rationalising process; competing plausible academic views do not justify judicial substitution of the preferred answer. (¶¶ 10, 11, 12, 13, 14)
- The Commission had obtained moderation by two expert committees before publication, invited objections and referred them to a further 26-member committee, which deleted five questions and changed two answers. Those safeguards were relevant to the restraint required in reviewing the final key. (¶¶ 6, 7, 13)
- The three questions altered by the High Court required a long reasoning process, and the Commission’s view had textbook support. The High Court improperly assumed the role of academic expert in choosing between those views. (¶¶ 14, 15)
- On Rahul Singh’s further objection, the Court was itself prima facie of the view that the Commission’s answer was correct. The candidates’ appeals therefore did not warrant relief. (¶¶ 15, 16)
Result
UPPSC’s appeal allowed and Allahabad High Court judgment set aside. Appeals by Rahul Singh and Jay Bux Singh and others dismissed. Pending applications disposed of.