Court may interfere when official answer keys are demonstrably incorrect and patently unacceptable.

The Petitioner, an OBC Non-Creamy Layer candidate, appeared for the UPSC Forest Service Examination, 2022.

He challenged the correctness of the official answer key for Questions 88 and 96 of General Studies Paper-I before the Central Administrative Tribunal ("Tribunal").

The Tribunal dismissed his original application (OA 4567/2024), relying on its own precedent in Potale Sheetal Shivaji v. UPSC and Supreme Court rulings stating there is no absolute right to re-evaluation.

The Petitioner approached the High Court of Delhi via a writ petition, asserting that the Tribunal failed to address the specific challenge to the patent incorrectness of the model answer key.

1. Whether the Tribunal erred in dismissing the petition on the grounds of "no right to re-evaluation" when the Petitioner was specifically challenging the demonstrative incorrectness of the official answer key.

2. Whether the Court can interfere in recruitment examinations if the suggested answers in the model answer key are patently or demonstrably incorrect.

Statement identifying a key statute, principle, or precedent: The Court primarily relied on the legal principle that while re-evaluation is not a matter of right, there is no absolute bar on judicial review of an answer key if the suggested answers are "demonstrably unacceptable" or "patently incorrect".

Statement on the doctrine derived from a case: It specifically applied the precedent from Staff Selection Commission v. Shubham Pal & Ors. (2024 SCC OnLine Del 7144), which held that Courts should interfere ex debito justitiae if an answer key is flawed, though they must refrain from interference if the answer is merely "arguable" or "plausible".

The High Court found that the Tribunal mischaracterized the Petitioner's plea as a request for "re-evaluation" of his answer sheets.

The Court clarified that the Petitioner was actually questioning the underlying validity of the model answer key relative to established legal facts and Supreme Court precedents, such as Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas regarding the writ maintainability of Government Companies (relevant to Q. 88).

The Court reasoned that the Tribunal failed to exercise its jurisdiction by not examining whether the challenged answers were indeed demonstrably incorrect.

Since the Tribunal had not addressed the merits of the specific questions, the High Court determined that the matter required a fresh adjudication rather than a summary dismissal.

The Court held that the Tribunal must determine if the model answers are demonstrably incorrect as per the Petitioner’s contentions.

The parties were directed to appear before the Tribunal on July 6, 2026, with a request for the Tribunal to dispose of the matter expeditiously.