Mayank Jhingan vs Union Public Service Commission

A 200/1154/2015
O
1


Reserved

CENTRAL ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, JABALPUR BENCH
JABALPUR
(Hybrid Mode)

Original Application No.200/1154/2015

th
Jabalpur, this Tuesday, the 13 day of October, 2026


HON’BLE MR. RAJINDER SINGH DOGRA, JUDICIAL MEMBER

HON’BLE MRS. MALLIKA ARYA, ADMINISTRATIVE MEMBER

Mayank Jhingan, S/o Dr. Vijay Jhingan, DOB: 18.11.1984, working as
JTO, BSNL, Bhopal (M.P.), R/o Jhingan Clinic, In front of Gandhi
Hospital, Jiwajiganj, Morena – 476001 (M.P.) -Applicant

(By Advocate – Shri Samveg Tripathi)
V e r s u s

1. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry of Personnel, P.G. &
Pensions, Department of Personnel & Training, North Block, New Delhi.
2. The Secretary, Union Public Service Commission, Dholpur House,
Shahjahan Road, New Delhi – 110069 - Respondents
(By Advocate – Shri S.P. Singh for respondent No.1 and Shri Sandeep
Kumar Shukla for respondent No.2)


(Date of reserving order : 23.09.2026)

O R D E R

By Mallika Arya, AM.-
The applicant is aggrieved in having been granted lesser marks than his
entitlement due to wrong valuation of answer sheet depriving his selection
under the Engineering Service Examination, 2013.
Page 1 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1154/2015
O
2
2. Facts of the case, in brief, are that the applicant was appointed as Junior
Telecom Officer. Pursuant to a notification dated 06.04.2013 issued by the
respondent No.2-UPSC for the examination of Engineering Service, 2013,
the applicant submitted his candidature and participated in the written
th th th
examination scheduled on 28 , 29 & 30 June, 2013. The applicant
successfully participated in the written examination and was called for
interview. After publication of final result, the applicant came to know that
he had obtained total 633 marks (533 marks in written and 100 marks in
personality test) as a general category candidate. The last selected candidate
who got selected and was appointed in the Electronic and
Telecommunication Engineering Branch had secured 636 marks.
2.1 The applicant obtained the OMR answer sheet of Engineering Services
Examination, 2013 through RTI. According to him, he had answered
questions Nos.9, 12, 16, 24, 32 & 115 of Paper I, Set A correctly. However,
he was not awarded any marks for these questions. Feeling aggrieved with
his non-selection, the applicant filed a Writ Petition No.4603/2014 before
the Hon’ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Gwalior. However, the same
Page 2 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1154/2015
O
3
was withdrawn with the liberty to approach this Tribunal. Hence this
Original Application.
The respondent No.2-UPSC have filed their reply raising the basic
3.
objection that the Original Application is liable to be dismissed on the
ground of non-joinder of necessary parties as the applicant has not
impleaded the successful candidates in the said examination as a party. The
answer key of the questions were in the first instance prepared by the
experts for the corresponding questions, which were thereafter further
approved by the subject experts independently before the conduct of the
examination. The same were again got revalidated independently by another
set of subject experts after the examination got over and before undertaking
the evaluation of answer sheets. Hence, maximum care was taken and due
diligence was exercised while finalizing the answer keys through a three tier
exercise and every efforts was made to ensure correctness of the answers.
The applicant has self-evaluated his answer sheet which is not proper and
on the basis of his self-evaluation, it cannot be said whether the answer
sheets of the applicant has not been properly evaluated. Further, there is no
provision of re-evaluation of answer sheet in any of the examinations
conducted by the UPSC.
Page 3 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1154/2015
O
4
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
pleadings and the documents available on record.
5. Learned counsel for the applicant has stated that his answers to six
questions for which he has not been awarded marks are supported by the
various books on the subject and also on the basis of information available
on the internet. There is no rebuttal to the averments made by him in his
Original Application qua the material produced by him to substantiate his
claim that his answer to the six questions were correct. He has placed
reliance on a decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Thangam and
another vs. Navamani Ammal , (2024) 4 SCC 247, wherein it has been
held that failure to make specific para-wise denial tantamounts to
admission.
5.1 He has further submitted that no relief has been claimed against the
successful candidates in the examination. Hence they have not been arrayed
as necessary party. The applicant is seeking selection under the Engineering
Services Examination, 2013 and the relief claimed by him can be granted in
terms of the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Naseem
Bano (Smt) vs. State of U.P. and others , 1993 Supp (4) SCC 46, wherein
Page 4 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1154/2015
O
5
the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed to promote the applicant therein
without upsetting the appointment of already promoted candidates.
So far as the issue of re-evaluation is concerned, he has placed reliance
5.2
on a decision of this Tribunal in Original Applicant No.540 of 2017 dated
24.07.2024 in which looking to the peculiar facts and circumstances of this
case, this Tribunal directed to constitute a committee of experts to look into
the issue of re-evaluation. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of
Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of Uttar
Pradesh and others , (2018) 2 SCC 357, wherein the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held that even if the Rules or Regulations do not permit re-evaluation,
the Court may permit it if it is demonstrated that a material error has been
committed.
6. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the entire matter.
7. The principal grievance of the applicant is that he has been awarded
less marks in the Engineering Services Examination, 2013 on account of
alleged erroneous evaluation of six questions, namely Questions Nos. 9, 12,
16, 24, 32 and 115 of Paper-I, Set-A. According to the applicant, the
answers given by him to the aforesaid questions were correct and, if marks
Page 5 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1154/2015
O
6
for these questions had been awarded to him then he would have secured
marks sufficient for his selection.
It is a well settled law that the scope of judicial review in matters
8.
relating to evaluation of answer scripts and correctness of answer keys in
competitive examinations is extremely limited. The Courts/Tribunals
ordinarily cannot assume the role of an academic expert and undertake an
independent assessment of the answers given by a candidate. Unless a clear
and demonstrable error in the answer key is established on the basis of
material which admits of no reasonable doubt, interference with the
evaluation process is not warranted.
9. In Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta , (1983) 4 SCC 309, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed that where an answer key is
demonstrably incorrect and the relevant answer is not capable of more than
one interpretation, appropriate relief may be granted. At the same time, the
judgment makes it clear that the Court should not ordinarily interfere
merely because another answer appears to be preferable. The principle was
subsequently considered in detail by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ran
Vijay Singh (supra), wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court, after considering
Page 6 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1154/2015
O
7
the earlier authorities, has held that the Court should presume the
correctness of the key answers and proceed on that basis. It was further held
that the Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the correctness of the
answer key as if it were exercising appellate jurisdiction over the academic
experts. Interference is justified only in exceptional cases where a
demonstrable and patent error is established.
In the present case, the respondents have specifically stated that the
10.
answer keys were not prepared casually or by a single individual.
According to the UPSC, the answer keys were initially prepared by subject
experts, thereafter independently approved by another set of subject experts
before the examination, and were again revalidated by yet another set of
subject experts after the examination and before evaluation of the answer
scripts. Thus, the answer keys underwent a three-tier process of
examination and validation by subject experts. The aforesaid stand of the
UPSC has considerable significance. The applicant has essentially
undertaken a self-evaluation of his answer script and has relied upon certain
books and material available on the internet to substantiate his claim that his
answers to six questions were correct. However, merely because a particular
book or material supports the answer given by the applicant, it cannot be
Page 7 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1154/2015
O
8
interfered that the answer adopted by the examining authority was
demonstrably wrong.
The reliance placed by the applicant upon Thangam & Anr . (supra) is
11.
misplaced as the principle relating to non-traverse or deemed admission
cannot be applied mechanically to an academic determination made in a
competitive examination, particularly where the examining authority has
specifically disclosed the procedure followed for preparation and validation
of the answer key. The question before us is not merely one of pleadings but
whether the applicant has established a patent error in the examination
process warranting interference with the result. In our considered view, he
has failed to do so.
12. The applicant has also relied upon the judgment in Ran Vijay Singh
(supra) to contend that re-evaluation can be directed even where the rules do
not provide for it. There can be no quarrel with the proposition that in an
exceptional case, where a clear and demonstrable error is established,
Courts may exercise their jurisdiction to prevent manifest injustice.
However, the judgment does not lay down that re-evaluation should be
ordered merely because a candidate disputes the answer key or produces an
Page 8 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1154/2015
O
9
alternative answer from another textbook or material. On the contrary, the
principles emerging from Ran Vijay Singh (supra) require the
Court/Tribunal to exercise restraint in matters concerning academic
evaluation. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that re-
evaluation cannot become a routine exercise and that the Court should not
embark upon an academic inquiry into the correctness of answers. The
present case does not disclose any exceptional circumstance warranting
departure from that settled principle.
13. The decision of this Tribunal in O.A. No.540 of 2017 dated
24.07.2024, relied upon by the applicant, also does not advance his case.
The said decision was rendered in the peculiar facts and circumstances of
that case and cannot be treated as laying down a general principle that
whenever a candidate disputes the marks awarded to him, an expert
committee must necessarily be constituted for re-evaluation. Each case has
to be considered on its own facts and in accordance with the applicable
examination rules. The UPSC has categorically demonstrated that there is
no provision for re-evaluation of answer scripts in the Engineering Services
Examination. It is settled law that a candidate who participates in a
competitive examination is governed by the rules and conditions of that
Page 9 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1154/2015
O
10
examination. In the absence of a provision permitting re-evaluation, a
direction for re-evaluation cannot ordinarily be issued merely on the basis
of an allegation by a candidate that he ought to have secured higher marks.
14. The judgment in Naseem Bano (supra), relied upon by the applicant,
was rendered in a materially different factual and legal context. That
decision cannot be read as conferring an independent right upon a candidate
to claim appointment by seeking alteration of marks in a competitive
examination in the absence of proof of illegality in the selection process. In
the present case, the applicant admittedly secured 633 marks, whereas the
last selected candidate in the Electronic and Telecommunication
Engineering Branch secured 636 marks. The difference of three marks by
itself cannot constitute a ground for directing re-evaluation. The fact that he
would become eligible for selection if additional marks were granted to him
cannot be the basis for ordering re-evaluation. It is equally important that a
competitive examination involves a large number of candidates whose
rights and expectations are founded upon the final result declared by the
examining authority. Permitting re-evaluation at the instance of an
individual candidate merely because he disputes certain answers may have a
cascading effect upon the entire selection process. There is no material
Page 10 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA

A 200/1154/2015
O
11
before us to hold that the UPSC acted arbitrarily, mala fide or contrary to
the prescribed procedure. The applicant has failed to establish any patent,
manifest or demonstrable error in the evaluation warranting exercise of
judicial review.
15. In the result, this Original Application is dismissed being devoid of any

merit. No order as to costs.

(Mallika Arya) (Rajinder Singh Dogra)
Administrative Member Judicial Member

am/-
Page 11 of 11
2026.10.16
ANUPAM
10:22:17
+05'30'
MISHRA