Courts cannot re-evaluate competitive examination questions absent a patent error in the answer key.

The petitioners appeared in the Customs Brokers Licensing Examination held on 18 March 2025 under Regulation 6 of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018. They challenged the paper on the grounds that it departed from the pattern followed in earlier years by including a larger proportion of questions from Allied Acts, and that certain questions were allegedly ambiguous, erroneous, difficult, or beyond the syllabus. They sought directions to issue them customs broker licences or, alternatively, to relax the six-attempt limit.

The respondents maintained that the examination was within the prescribed syllabus and that its questions and answers had been vetted by an expert committee.

1. Whether the increased proportion of questions from Allied Acts, compared with the pattern of previous examinations, rendered the 2025 examination unlawful or defective

2. Whether the challenged questions or answer key contained patent errors or defects warranting judicial interference

3. Whether the petitioners were entitled to licences or relaxation of the six-attempt limit on the basis of the alleged defects or the examination’s difficulty

Regulation 6(7) of the Customs Brokers Licensing Regulations, 2018 permits examination questions on specified subjects, including Allied Acts and other laws applicable to EXIM trade and relevant to customs clearance; it prescribes no numerical limit on questions from those subjects.

Judicial review of competitive examinations is limited: courts do not substitute their views for those of subject experts and may interfere only for mala fides, arbitrariness, or patent illegality.

Under Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, an answer key is presumed correct unless the challenger demonstrates a glaring error apparent without inferential reasoning.

The Court also relied on Chancellor v. Bijayananda Kar and Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board for the principle that examination-setting and assessment are primarily matters for experts, and that a challenger bears a heavy burden to establish a patent defect.

The Regulations expressly included Allied Acts in the examination syllabus and set no required proportion between questions on those Acts and other subjects. The historical pattern relied on by the petitioners therefore did not bind the examining authority.

As to the individual questions, the petitioners’ objections principally concerned difficulty, drafting precision, or their interpretation; they did not establish that the answer key contained a patent error under the Samir Gupta standard.

The expert committee’s verification further weighed against intervention, and neither the paper’s difficulty nor the lower success rate established that the examination was defective.

The alleged defects consequently provided no basis for licences or relaxation of the attempt limit.

It dismissed the petition and disposed of the pending application.