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)

J U D G M E N T

Deepak Gupta, J.

Applications for impleadment are allowed.

2. Leave granted.

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