Courts cannot substitute domain experts’ views on examination answers absent a glaring error.

The appellant participated in the selection process conducted by the Medical Services Recruitment Board for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General).

She challenged the answer key relating to Question No. 25, contending that both options ‘A’ and ‘B’ were correct, whereas the official key treated option ‘B’ as the correct answer.

Since she had selected option ‘A’, she claimed that marks ought to have been awarded to her.

The writ petition challenging the examination result was dismissed by the Single Judge on 10 March 2025 in W.P. No. 6491 of 2025.

The appellant thereafter preferred the present intra-court appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of judicial review, could interfere with the examination authority’s answer key on the ground that Question No. 25 was ambiguous and that both options ‘A’ and ‘B’ were correct?

Whether marks could be awarded to the appellant contrary to the official answer key on the basis of her interpretation of the disputed question?

The Court applied the principles governing judicial review of examination answer keys laid down in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., 2017 INSC 1209, namely that courts should not re-evaluate answer scripts or substitute their own views for those of academic experts; the correctness of the official answer key should ordinarily be presumed; interference is permissible only in rare and exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated clearly, without inferential reasoning or rationalisation; and, in case of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than the candidate.

The Court also relied on U.P. Subordinate Service Selection Commission v. Ashok Yadav & Others, 2026 INSC 991, which held that courts must assess the question and answer as they stand and cannot reinterpret them merely because another formulation might have been clearer or made greater sense.

The Court further recognised that a suspect question may, in an appropriate case, be excluded from evaluation, but the examination process should not ordinarily be derailed because of an alleged erroneous question or answer.

The Court held that the appellant’s challenge required the Court to determine whether option ‘A’ was also correct and thereby substitute its assessment for that of the examination authority and domain experts.

Applying the principles in Ran Vijay Singh and Ashok Yadav, the Court emphasised that judicial review does not permit re-evaluation of academic questions through inferential reasoning or rationalisation.

A candidate cannot require the Court to read the question differently or to assess what the question ought to have stated; the question and answer must be considered as framed.

Since the appellant failed to establish a glaring or demonstrable error in the official key, the Court found no basis to award marks for option ‘A’ or to interfere with the decision of the writ court.

The contrary Division Bench decisions cited by the appellant were considered inconsistent with the later Supreme Court position and were therefore not treated as governing precedent.

It held that the High Court could not substitute its own view for that of the examination experts or award marks contrary to the official answer key in the absence of a clear and exceptional error.

The writ appeal was accordingly dismissed, with no order as to costs.

The connected miscellaneous petitions, if any, were closed.