Courts cannot re-evaluate examination answer keys after expert committees resolve candidate objections.

The Punjab Public Service Commission advertised 322 posts in the Punjab Civil Services (Executive Branch) and allied services through the Punjab State Civil Services Combined Competitive Examination, 2025; the posts were subsequently increased to 337.

The appellants, eligible candidates, appeared in the preliminary examination conducted on 7 December 2025.

After publication of the tentative answer key, objections were invited and considered by an Expert Committee.

On the basis of its recommendations, a revised answer key was prepared and the preliminary examination result was declared.

The appellants fell short of the qualifying threshold by two marks and challenged certain questions and answers, particularly Questions Nos. 79 and 13, seeking reconsideration of the answer key, constitution of another Expert Committee, or judicial re-evaluation.

The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petitions on 27 March 2026, holding that once the objections had been considered by the Expert Committee and the final result declared, the Court could not re-appreciate the expert determination.

During the proceedings, a further Expert Committee was constituted by the Court, which also rejected the appellants’ objections.

The appellants then filed the present intra-court appeals.

1. Whether, after the objections to the tentative answer key had been considered by the recruiting agency’s Expert Committee and subsequently by another Expert Committee constituted by the Court, the appellate Court could constitute a further committee or re-evaluate the correctness of the expert opinions?

2. Whether the Expert Committees were incompetent to determine the validity of the disputed answers because of their academic background, and whether the Court could prefer an alternative opinion regarding Question No. 79?

3. Whether the disputed question ought to have been deleted rather than dealt with through revision of the answer key, so as to alter the appellants’ qualifying position?

The Court applied the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017, decided on 11 December 2017, namely: where the applicable examination rules permit re-evaluation, it may be undertaken in accordance with those rules; where they do not provide for re-evaluation, judicial intervention is permissible only in rare and exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated clearly and without inferential reasoning; courts should not themselves re-evaluate answer sheets because academic matters are best left to academic experts; the correctness of the official answer key should ordinarily be presumed; and any residual doubt should operate in favour of the examination authority rather than the candidate.

The Court further applied the principle that courts do not sit as appellate authorities over expert committees in academic and examination matters, particularly where the objections have already undergone expert review.

The Court held that the appellants had already received the procedural consideration available to them: their objections were examined by the recruiting agency’s Expert Committee and, additionally, by a second Expert Committee constituted during the litigation.

Both committees rejected the objections concerning the disputed questions.

Applying Ran Vijay Singh, the Court declined to undertake a further examination of the answer key or to appoint another committee, as doing so would effectively make the Court an appellate authority over academic experts and perpetuate litigation.

The challenge to the competence of the experts was also rejected because the committees had considered the issue and provided reasons, and the Court found no basis to disregard their opinions merely because of the members’ academic background.

Finally, the Court held that the decision whether to delete a question or revise an answer key belonged to the recruiting agency.

Since the agency had deleted questions where necessary and otherwise finalized the result on the basis of the revised key, the appellants could not seek deletion merely to secure the qualifying marks, particularly after the main examination had been conducted and intervention could prejudice other candidates.

It held that, after consideration by two Expert Committees, no further Expert Committee or judicial re-evaluation was warranted; the Court could not sit in appeal over the expert findings; and the appellants had no enforceable right to demand deletion of the disputed question.

The order dated 27 March 2026 dismissing the writ petitions was found neither perverse nor contrary to settled law.

Accordingly, all four appeals were dismissed, and any pending applications were also disposed of.