Courts cannot re-evaluate examination answer keys absent clear, material error demonstrable without inference.

The petitioner challenged the model answer key issued by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission for Set-C of the General Studies paper, specifically in relation to Questions 55, 67 and 69.

He sought correction of the answer key, award of six additional marks, reassessment of the cut-off, and permission to participate in the mains examination.

The respondents contended that the controversy was already governed by the Full Bench decision in Nitin Pathak v. State of M.P., W.A. No. 581 of 2017, decided on 4 September 2017.

The petitioner could not distinguish the facts of his case from Nitin Pathak.

1. Whether the High Court, in exercise of judicial review under Article 226, should examine and correct the disputed answers in the examination authority’s model answer key.

2. Whether the petitioner was entitled to reassessment of his marks, revision of the cut-off, and permission to participate in the mains examination on the basis of the alleged errors in Questions 55, 67 and 69.

3. Whether the petitioner had demonstrated a clear and material error in the answer key warranting judicial interference under the principles governing re-evaluation of examination papers.

The Court applied the Full Bench ruling in Nitin Pathak v. State of M.P., which held that courts should not ordinarily refer disputed answer keys to court-appointed experts and should defer to academicians and experts absent mala fides or a clear defect in the decision-making process.

It further relied on Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357, which establishes that re-evaluation is permissible as of right only where the governing statute, rule or regulation so provides; otherwise, judicial intervention is justified only in rare and exceptional cases where the candidate demonstrates, clearly and without inferential reasoning, that the answer key contains a material error.

Courts must not act as appellate authorities over expert academic opinions or undertake re-evaluation themselves.

Sympathy or perceived individual hardship cannot justify derailing the examination process.

The Court found that the petitioner’s challenge concerned the correctness of expert-determined answers in the model answer key.

Under Nitin Pathak and Ran Vijay Singh, the Court’s review was confined to the legality of the decision-making process and did not extend to substituting its own academic assessment for that of the examination experts.

The petitioner was unable to distinguish his case from Nitin Pathak and did not establish any mala fide action or a clear, demonstrable material error in the disputed answers warranting exceptional interference.

Consequently, the Court declined to correct the answer key, reassess the petitioner’s marks, or interfere with the examination process.

The claims for six additional marks, reassessment of the cut-off, and permission to participate in the mains examination were therefore rejected.

The writ petition was dismissed.