Candidates who omit timely answer-key objections cannot belatedly challenge examination errors absent clear material error.

The petitioners, B.A.M.S.-qualified Ayurvedic doctors, took part in the selection process under Advertisement No. 05/2025 for contractual Ayush Medical Officer posts.

They alleged that the computer-based test contained erroneous questions, answers and translations, and sought relaxation of the qualifying marks.

Although they had submitted a representation to the State Health Society, they did not object to the answer key during the prescribed window.

The Society published the results and shortlisted candidates for document verification/counselling; the petitioners then raised their objections and sought relief under Article 226.

The matters were referred to the Division Bench by a Single Judge.

1. Whether candidates who did not challenge the answer key within the prescribed objection period could subsequently seek judicial intervention based on alleged errors in the examination.

2. Whether the Court could direct relaxation of the advertised qualifying marks in the circumstances alleged by the petitioners.

Under Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357, judicial re-evaluation or scrutiny of examination answers is permissible only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is clearly demonstrated, without inferential reasoning or rationalisation; courts should defer to examination authorities and academic expertise, and, in case of doubt, presume the answer key is correct.

Under Suresh Kumar Lalit Kumar Patel v. State of Gujarat, (2023) 19 SCC 596, reducing qualifying marks to provide employment to a particular category may offend Article 14 where other candidates have already acquired rights.

Advertisement terms governing selection bind the parties unless contrary to a statute or rule; a change must be made by amendment and remains subject to Article 14.

The petitioners admitted that they had not objected to the answer key during the Society’s objection window and raised their challenge only after publication of the final results.

The Court held that belated objections could not justify intervention under Article 226 absent a clearly established material error, which had not been shown.

It also considered that relaxing the qualifying marks after the selection process could undermine finality and prejudice candidates who had acquired rights under the advertised criteria.

The advertisement’s terms could not be altered to secure a particular outcome without a lawful amendment consistent with Article 14.

Both writ petitions were dismissed.