1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5838 OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP (C) NO. 12472 OF 2018)

U.P.P.S.C., Through its Chairman & Anr. … Appellant (s)

Versus

Rahul Singh & Anr. …Respondent(s)

With

CIVIL APPEAL NO.5839 OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP (C) No.13166 of 2018)

And

CIVIL APPEAL NOS. 5840-5842 OF 2018

(Arising out of SLP(C) Nos.13567-13569 OF 2018)

JUDGMENT

Deepak Gupta, J.

Signature Not Verified

Applications for impleadment are allowed.
Digitally signed by
ASHA SUNDRIYAL

2. Leave granted.
Date: 2018.06.14
16:47:50 PKT
Reason:
 2

3. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment

since they arise out of one judgment delivered by the High Court of

Allahabad on 30.03.2018.

4. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the decision of this case

are that the appellant U.P. Public Service Commission (for short ‘the

Commission’) issued an advertisement on 22.02.2017 inviting

applications for filling up vacancies in the Upper Subordinate

Services of the State. The selection is conducted through a three

stage test consisting of preliminary written examination, main

examination and interview. Those candidates who clear the

preliminary examination are entitled to appear in the main

examination.

5. The preliminary examination consisted of two papers namely

General Studies-I and General Studies-II. We are in this case

concerned only with the General Studies-I paper which carried 200

marks and consists of 150 objective type questions with multiple

choice answers. After the preliminary examination was conducted,

key answers were published by the Commission. Many persons

 3

including the petitioners before the Allahabad High Court

contended that some of the key answers were incorrect or that some

of the questions had more than one correct answer.

6. It is not disputed before us that the Commission initially

constituted two separate expert committees; one comprising of 15

experts and the other comprising of 18 experts. This was done even

before the key answers were displayed on the official website of the

Commission. After these two committees gave their expert opinion

the key answers were uploaded on the official website of the

Commission during the period 18.11.2017 to 23.11.2017.

Objections to the key answers were to be submitted by 24.11.2017.

7. The Commission received 962 objections. The Commission

constituted a committee consisting of 26 members to consider the

objections raised by the candidates. This 26 member expert

committee examined all the objections over a period of two days

and, thereafter, on the basis of the recommendations of this

committee 5 questions were deleted and the key answers of 2

questions were changed. As a consequence the result was declared

 4

on the basis of 145 questions. Thereafter, various candidates filed

writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court wherein challenge was

raised to the correctness of the key answers in respect of 14

questions. The High Court examined these questions and after

elaborate discussion and reasoning negatived the prayer of the

petitioners in respect of 11 questions but in respect of one question

the High Court held that the question should be deleted; in respect

of another question it held that there were two correct answers and

in respect of one more question it disagreed with the view of the

Commission and accepted the submission of the petitioners that

the answer given in the key was incorrect. This judgment is under

challenge in these appeals.

8. In the appeal filed by the Commission it has been urged that

the High Court transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the

scope of judicial review available in such cases and it should not

have overruled the view of the Commission which was based on the

report of two committees of experts. On the other hand one of the

original writ petitioners in his appeal claims that as far as the

question where the High Court has held more than one answer is
 5

correct, the same should be deleted and in respect of another

question it is urged that the High Court wrongly accepted the

answer of the Commission.

9. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in

matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a

number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited

before us.

10. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others

vs. Samir Gupta and Others 1, this Court was dealing with a

case relating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the

examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there

were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key

answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of

the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of

the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court

are pertinent:-

1 (1983) 4 SCC 309

 6

“16………..We agree that the key answer should be

assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and
that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential
process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It
must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it
must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in
the particular subject would regard as correct………”

The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with

one that the State Government should devise a system for

moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters.

11. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh

and Others2, this Court after referring to a catena of judicial

pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following

terms:-

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

2 (2018) 2 SCC 357

 7

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.”

We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32

which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint

in such matters:-

“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;
 8

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.”

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 (supra), 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

 9

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 answer is better or more correct.

14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a

long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that

the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text

books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow

down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be

experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great

restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the

opinion of the experts.

 10

15. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that

the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions

which amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field.

As far as the objection of the appellant - Rahul Singh is concerned,

after going through the question on which he raised an objection,

we ourselves are of the prima facie view that the answer given by the

Commission is correct.

16. In view of the above discussion we allow the appeal filed by

the U.P. Public Service Commission and set aside the judgment of

the Allahabad High Court. The appeals filed by Rahul Singh and

Jay Bux Singh and Others are dismissed. All pending applications

stand disposed of.

………………………………..J.
(Uday Umesh Lalit)

…………………………………J.
(Deepak Gupta)
New Delhi
June 14, 2018