Courts cannot interfere with expert opinions on answer keys if supported by standard academic authority.

The appellants participated in a 2016 recruitment process for the posts of Assistant Review Officer and Review Officer conducted by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission.

They were not selected and subsequently filed a writ petition (WPSS No. 577 of 2019) challenging the Commission's answer key for a multiple-choice question regarding "Heavy Water".

While the appellants chose Option 'A' (Coolant), the Commission treated Option 'B' (Moderator) as correct.

A Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 16.03.2026, holding that courts should not interfere with expert opinions and noting the significant delay, as the 2016 selection concluded in 2019 and a subsequent 2023 cycle concluded in 2025.

The appellants filed this intra-court appeal seeking a revision of marks.

1. Whether the Court should interfere with the findings of an expert body regarding the correctness of an answer key in a competitive examination.

2. Whether it is legally proper to disturb a selection process that concluded several years prior and has been followed by subsequent recruitment cycles.

Statement identifying a key statute, principle, or precedent: Judicial restraint regarding the technical opinions of expert bodies in academic and recruitment matters.

Statement on the doctrine derived from a case: Mandates that the opinion of an expert body must be given due deference and should not be substituted by the Court’s view unless it is palpably wrong (Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., AIR 2018 SC 52).

Principle of finality in recruitment processes to prevent administrative instability.

The Court examined the conflicting evidence: the appellants provided data from the Department of Atomic Energy suggesting Heavy Water acts as both a "moderator" and "coolant", while the Commission justified Option 'B' (Moderator) using a standard textbook, Principles of Inorganic Chemistry by Puri, Sharma, and Pathania.

The Court reasoned that even if Option 'A' could be considered correct in a specific context, the expert body's choice of Option 'B' was supported by recognized academic authorities and was not arbitrary.

The Court emphasized that it lacks the expertise to overrule a selection board's technical determination.

The Court highlighted the "equities" of the case: the selection in question relates to a 2016 advertisement that was finalized in 2019, with a later recruitment cycle already completed in 2025; thus, reopening the results after seven years would be improper.

The Special Appeal was dismissed, and no relief was granted to the appellants as the expert body’s opinion deserves deference and the passage of time barred any interference with the settled selection list.