Courts may correct palpably erroneous examination answer keys when authoritative rules establish the prescribed answer is wrong.

Pursuant to the Staff Selection Commission’s advertisement dated 27 October 2022 for recruitment to Constable (General Duty) posts in the Central Armed Police Forces, the petitioner participated in the selection process and qualified the requisite stages, including medical examination.

He was not selected because his score was 2½ marks below the applicable cut-off, after his answer to Question No. 8 was treated as incorrect.

The question asked: “What is the maximum length of the touch line in a football match?” The petitioner selected “120 m,” whereas the final answer key treated “110 m” as correct.

The petitioner contended that, under the IFAB Laws of the Game, 120 metres is the maximum length for football matches generally, while 110 metres applies only to international matches.

He had objected to the tentative answer key and subsequently submitted a representation, but the answer was not altered.

The petitioner obtained 65.32908 marks against the OBC cut-off of 67.08295 for ITBP; addition of 2½ marks would raise his score to 67.82908, above the cut-off.

1. Whether the answer key treating 110 metres as the correct answer to Question No. 8 was demonstrably erroneous and whether the petitioner’s answer of 120 metres was correct as the question was framed.

2. Whether the Court could interfere with the expert-approved answer key in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.

3. Whether the petitioner was entitled to award of 2½ marks and consequential appointment notwithstanding completion of the recruitment process.

The Court applied the principle that, under Article 226, courts ordinarily defer to answer keys prepared by subject experts and do not sit in appeal over their opinions. However, interference is permissible where the prescribed answer is palpably and demonstrably wrong, based on authoritative and indisputable material, and is such that no reasonable body of persons versed in the subject would regard it as correct.

Relying on Kanpur University through Vice-Chancellor v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309, the Court held that an answer key must be presumed correct unless clearly proved wrong and cannot be invalidated through inferential reasoning or rationalisation.

It also relied on Baranyamoy Sarma v. Gauhati High Court and Dilip Das v. Union of India, 2023 Supreme (Online) (GAU) 8031, recognising judicial intervention where an answer is demonstrably incorrect or ambiguity in the question prejudices candidates.

The IFAB Laws of the Game were treated as authoritative material establishing that the maximum touch-line length is 120 metres for football matches generally and 110 metres only for international football matches.

The Court found that the question referred generally to “a football match” and did not qualify the match as an international football match.

The IFAB rules expressly distinguish between the two categories: 120 metres for matches generally and 110 metres for international matches.

Since the question contained no limitation to international matches, the Commission’s selection of 110 metres depended on an assumption not expressed in the question.

The respondents’ counsel also conceded that 120 metres was correct under the general rules and that 110 metres applied only to international matches.

The Court therefore held that the answer key was demonstrably erroneous, rather than merely debatable, and that the petitioner had suffered direct prejudice because awarding the withheld 2½ marks would place him above the prescribed cut-off.

The Court held that the petitioner’s answer of 120 metres was correct and that he had been wrongly denied 2½ marks on the basis of an erroneous answer key.

The respondents were directed to revise his result, award the additional 2½ marks, and treat him as qualified for the recruitment process.

Since his revised score exceeded the applicable cut-off, the respondents were directed to take consequential steps for his appointment as Constable (General Duty) in the Central Armed Police Forces or Rifleman (General Duty) in Assam Rifles, as applicable.

If no vacancy remained, the respondents were directed to consider suitable accommodation, including creation of a supernumerary post where legally permissible.

The exercise was to be completed within three months of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment.