Nasir Rasheed vs University Grants Commission And Anr
- Court
- Delhi High Court
$~86-90
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
# CNR No. DLHC010449472026
Date of decision: 05.11.2026
+ W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & CM APPL. 64631/2026
NASIR RASHEED
.....Petitioner
Through: Adv. Mr Sidhant Goel; Adv. Mr.
Deepankar Mishra; Adv. Ms. Kratvi Kawdia; Adv.
Ms. Manasvi Kaushik
versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION AND ANR
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Parmanand Gaur, SC, for the
UGC with Mr. Vibhav Mishra and Ms. Megha
Gaur, Advs.
87
# CNR No. DLHC010466842026
+ W.P.(C) 14324/2026 & CM APPL. 67190/2026, CM APPL.
76219/2026
ASHFAQUE ALAM
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nishant Nain , Ms. Charu
Sharma, Mr. Chanderjeet yadav ,Mr. Vasu Kumar
& Ria Gupta, Advs.
versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Parmanand Gaur, SC, for the
UGC with Mr. Vibhav Mishra and Ms. Megha
Gaur, Advs.
88
# CNR No. DLHC010466912026
+ W.P.(C) 14331/2026 & CM APPL. 67200/2026
SAPNA SHARMA & ORS.
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters
Page 1 of 11
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nishant Nain , Ms. Charu
Sharma, Mr. Chanderjeet yadav ,Mr. Vasu Kumar
& Ria Gupta, Advs.
versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Parmanand Gaur, SC, for the
UGC with Mr. Vibhav Mishra and Ms. Megha
Gaur, Advs.
89
# CNR No. DLHC010467132026
+ W.P.(C) 14352/2026 & CM APPL. 67241/2026
KANGKANA BASUMATARY
.....Petitioner
Through: Mr. Nishant Nain , Ms. Charu
Sharma, Mr. Chanderjeet yadav ,Mr. Vasu Kumar
& Ria Gupta, Advs.
versus
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Parmanand Gaur, SC, for the
UGC with Mr. Vibhav Mishra and Ms. Megha
Gaur, Advs.
90
# CNR No. DLHC010478882026
+ W.P.(C) 14712/2026 & CM APPL. 68822/2026
ABHINAV YADAV & ORS
.....Petitioners
Through: Mr. Nishant Nain , Ms. Charu
Sharma, Mr. Chanderjeet yadav ,Mr. Vasu Kumar
& Ria Gupta, Advs.
versus
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters
Page 2 of 11
UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION & ANR.
.....Respondents
Through: Mr. Parmanand Gaur, SC, for the
UGC with Mr. Vibhav Mishra and Ms. Megha
Gaur, Advs.
CORAM:
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JASMEET SINGH
: JASMEET SINGH, J ( ORAL )
1. These are writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of
India challenging certain discrepancies in the provisional and final answer
keys published by the respondents in the UGC-NET June 2026.
2. Mr. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent No. 2/NTA, has
handed over counter affidavits in all the petitions which are taken on record.
3. In the entire batch, the following questions are challenged:-
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters
Page 3 of 11
Challenged
Qn. ID
Answer Petitioners Provisional
Challenged
window
Final
Answer Key
Petitioner’s Contention Reply in Counter
Answer Key
W.P(C)-13806/2026
NASIR RASHEED V
4818042982 48180411624
(Option 4)
48180411624
(Option 4)
Not
Challenged
48180411624
(Option 2)
Option 4 correct
Centres of Education
Subject Expert (p.8)
UGC & ANR.
Education-009
4818042974 48180411592
(Option 4)
48180411589
(Option 1)
Not
Challenged
48180411589
(Option 1)
Option 4 correct
Rousseau Philosophy
Subject Expert
No challenge in
window (p.4, 5)
4818042904 48180411310
(Option 2)
48180411310
(Option 2)
Not
Challenged
48180411311
(Option 3)
Option 2 correct
Stratified random sample
Subject Expert (p.7,8)
W.P(C)-14331/2026
4818042904 48180411310
(Option 2)
48180411310
(Option 2)
Not
Challenged
48180411311
(Option 3)
Option 2 correct
Stratified random sample
Subject Expert
(p.7,10)
SAPNA & ORS. V
UGC & ANR.
Education-009
4818042982 48180411624
(Option 4)
48180411624
(Option 4)
Not
Challenged
48180411624
(Option 2)
Option 4 correct
Centres of Education
Subject Expert
(p.7,10)
Qn ID
4818042904
Option 2
48180411310
Option 2 Not
challenged
Option 3
48180411311
Option 2 correct
Stratified sample
Subject expert (p.10)
W.P.(C)-14352/2026
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters Page 4 of 11
KANGKANA
BASUMATARY
V/s UGC & ANR
Qn ID
4818042982
Option 4
48180411624
Option 4 Not
challenged
Option 2
48180411622
Option 4 correct
Centres of Education
Subject expert (p.10)
Education-009
Qn ID
4818042962
Option 2
48180411542
Option 2 Not
challenged
Option 3
48180411543
Option 2 correct
BuddhistEdu Centre
Key Not changed.
Subject experts (p.10)
Qn ID
4818042871
Option 3
48180411183
Option 2 Not
Challenged
Option 2 Math Qn wrong
and erroneous
Subject expert (p.8)
Question ID
4818048438
Option 3, ID
48180432855
Option 3, ID
48180432855
Not
challenged
Option 2, ID
48180432854
(Revised)
Option 3 is right Human error in Prov.
Key (Annex-9, p38)
W.P.(C)-14324/2026
ASHFAQUE ALAM
V/s UGC & ANR
Question ID
4818048369
Option 3, ID
48180432583
Option 2, ID
48180432582
Not
challenged
Option 2, ID
48180432582
Math Question, wrong Qn
challenge
Urdu-028
W.P.(C)-14324/2026
ABHINAV YADAV
Qn ID
4818041051
Option 2 Challenged
only by
Abhinav
Option 2 None of the options
correct
Subject Expert
(p.9,11,13)
& ORS. V UGC
Geography–080
Qn ID
4818041048
Option 2 Not
Challenged
Option 1
(Revised)
None of the options
correct
Portal claim- Opt 1,
Writ claim-NOTA
Estopped (p.5)
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters Page 5 of 11
Qn ID
481804963
Option 3 Challenged
only by
Abhinav
Option 3 None of the options
correct
Subject Expert
(p.9,11,13)
Qn ID
481804978
Option 3 Challenged
only by
Abhinav
Option 3 Lava plateau, all option
are correct
Expert Opinion A-11
‘Can retain option 3’
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters Page 6 of 11
4. The law in writ jurisdictions with regard to the Court’s interference
with the opinion of the expert is well settled. The Hon’ble Division Bench of
this Court in LPA 782/2024 titled Nandita v. National Testing Agency &
Ors. vide Order dated 13.08.2024, held as under:-
“8. While examining such matters, the jurisdiction of this
Court is circumscribed by the law which is well-settled in this
regard, in a catena of pronouncements by the Supreme Court.
It is a well-settled position of law that the scope of judicial
adjudication and jurisdiction in such matters is limited. The
Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University v. Samir
Gupta (1983) 4 SCC 309 has held 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
rationalisation. 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.
9. In the present case, NTA had both the issues examined by
subject experts consequent to the receipt of objections. This
Court cannot sit as an appellate authority over the decision of
the experts regarding the correct answers to the questions.
Further, just because NTA has consulted experts does not
mean that the said experts cease to be neutral or independent
persons.”
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters
Page 7 of 11
5. As regards Question ID Nos. 4818042974, 4818042904, 4818048369,
4818041051, 4818041048 and 481804963, the dispute is one of academic
opinion and are inferential in nature. The respondents have stated in their
counter affidavits that these questions were examined by subject experts. No
patent error has been shown in respect of them. In exercise of its writ
jurisdiction, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the view of the experts or
substitute its own, and no interference is called for with these questions.
6. However, there are four questions which seem to be patently
erroneous and are not inferential in nature. The same read as under:-
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters
Page 8 of 11
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters
Page 9 of 11
7. The aforesaid four questions stand on a different footing. They are not
matters of academic opinion or inferential in nature on which experts may
reasonably differ. Each has only one correct answer, which can be verified
objectively from material available in the public domain and from the
standard source texts.
8. The restraint laid down in Nandita (supra) is not an absolute bar. The
same decision recognises that a key answer may be interfered with where it
is clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is, where no reasonable body of
persons well versed in the subject would regard it as correct. That test is met
where the error is apparent without any inferential process or rationalisation.
The four questions fall within that narrow category.
9. An error of this kind should not be suffered by the candidates. A
wrong key in a competitive examination affects ranking and eligibility, since
the marks awarded on the basis of the key determine a candidate’s merit
position and whether the candidate crosses the qualifying cut-off, and even a
single mark may decide whether a candidate is considered. However, this
Court will neither substitute its own view nor fix the answer key itself. The
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters
Page 10 of 11
proper course is to have the experts determine the matter afresh.
10. For the said reasons, I am of the view that the four questions bearing
Question IDs 4818042982, 4818042962, 4818048438 and 481804978,
should be referred to the respective subject experts for determination.
11. For the said reasons, the petitions are disposed of, referring the
aforesaid four questions to subject experts. The petition is treated as a
representation, and it is directed that the expert committee shall look into the
petitions, hear the petitioners and pass a speaking order within 3 weeks from
today.
12. The petition, along with any pending applications, is disposed of.
JASMEET SINGH, J
NOVEMBER 5, 2026/AS
(Corrected and released on 06.11.2026)
Signed By:ANSH
SRIVASTAVA
Signing Date:12.11.2026
12:30
W.P.(C) 13805/2026 & Conn. matters
Page 11 of 11