Court Directs Expert Committee Review of Contested Answer Key for Recruitment Fairness.

The applicant, Sumer Singh, sought relief concerning the final answer key for the Trained Graduate Teacher (Hindi) Male recruitment examination conducted by the Delhi Subordinate Services Selection Board (DSSSB).

He challenged the correctness of the answer provided by the respondent for question ID 60092912863, which asked for a single word for "handwritten book".

In the draft answer key, the correct answer was marked as 'पांडुिलपी' (Manuscript), but in the final answer key, it was shown as 'हˑिलİखत' (Handwritten).

The applicant provided evidence from an examination conducted by Navodaya Vidyalaya Samiti, where 'Pandulipi' was considered the correct answer for the same question.

The applicant also provided an RTI response from NCERT supporting 'पांडुिलपी' for "Manuscript" regarding handwritten books.

The applicant scored 38.88 marks in Section A, below the minimum qualifying mark of 40, but his total score of 114.38 was above the general category cut-off of 103.54.

The applicant contended that if his answer, 'Pandulipi', was accepted as correct for the disputed question, he would qualify Section A.

The respondents maintained that their Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) found 'हˑपustक' (Hastpustak - Handbook) to be the correct answer based on their objection redressal, and therefore no change was made to the answer keys or result.

1. Whether the final answer key for question ID 60092912863, to the extent of the answer provided, should be quashed and set aside.

2. Whether the respondents should be directed to award marks to the applicant for question ID 60092912863 by considering 'पांडुिलपी' as the correct answer and consequently revise his result.

3. Whether the respondents should be directed to constitute an expert committee to re-examine the answer to question ID 60092912863 and if discrepancies are found, issue a revised answer key and result for the applicant.

4. Whether the applicant's pending representation dated 22.02.2022 should be considered and decided by the competent authority.

The Tribunal acknowledged the well-settled principle that courts should not overreach the judicial wisdom of experts and that the scope of judicial interference in subject expert opinions is limited.

This principle was supported by citing judgments such as *UPSC Vs. Rahul Singh and Anr.* (Civil Appeal No. 5839/2018) and *H P Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.* (Civil Appeal No. 907/2006).

However, it also affirmed the principle that judicial discretion exists to ascertain the correctness of questions, though the exercise of arriving at just conclusions on correctness must be done by an Executive.

Reference was also made to *Vinay Kumar Vs. Union of India and Ors.* (W.P. No. 14638/2024), where the Delhi High Court allowed rectification of marks based on a correct answer, securing an appointment without disturbing already selected candidates or extending relief to 'fence-sitters'.

The Tribunal recognized the applicant's contention that the final answer key for question ID 60092912863 was incorrect, presenting evidence from a draft answer key, another examination board, and an NCERT RTI response, all supporting 'पांडुिलपी' (Manuscript) as the correct answer for "Handwritten book".

The respondent, however, relied on the opinion of Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) who determined 'हˑपustक' (Hastpustak - Handbook) as the correct answer without placing on record any specific justification for their decision.

The applicant's case hinged on the fact that if his answer was indeed correct, he would cross the minimum qualifying marks in Section A and thus become eligible for further selection.

While acknowledging the limited scope of judicial interference in expert opinions, the Tribunal found it appropriate to direct the executive to review the matter, particularly since the respondent had not provided any material justifying the SME's conclusion.

The Tribunal's decision to direct the consideration of the applicant's representation by referring the question to an expert, along with the applicant’s supporting materials, reflects a balance between judicial restraint and ensuring fairness in the recruitment process, aligning with the principles applied in *Vinay Kumar v. Union of India and Ors.*

This decision is to be made by referring question ID 60092912863, along with the material highlighted by the applicant, to an expert in the field.

If the expert finds the applicant's answer, 'पांडुिलपी', to be correct, the applicant will be entitled to the consequential relief of an offer of appointment and any other consequential benefits.

This exercise is to be completed within three months from the date of receiving the certified copy of the order.

The Tribunal explicitly stated that this order is not to be treated as a binding precedent due to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.