Courts may interfere with examination answer keys only when the official answers are demonstrably incorrect.

The applicant challenged the UPSC’s official answer key for Questions 88 and 96 of Series C of the Indian Forest Service (Preliminary) Examination, 2022.

He contended that correcting the answers would raise his score above the OBC-NCL cut-off and sought, among other reliefs, a compensatory attempt in a subsequent examination.

The Tribunal had initially dismissed his application, but the Delhi High Court set that decision aside and remitted the matter for fresh consideration, clarifying that the challenge concerned the correctness of the answer key, not re-evaluation of the applicant’s answer script.

Whether the official answers to Questions 88 and 96 were demonstrably incorrect so as to warrant judicial interference with the answer key.

Whether the applicant was entitled to consequential relief, including a compensatory attempt in a subsequent examination.

The Tribunal applied the principle that courts ordinarily presume an official answer key to be correct and should defer to the examination authority; where doubt remains, it should be resolved in favour of the authority rather than the candidate, and sympathy or compassion has no role in answer-key disputes (Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh).

Judicial scrutiny is not absolutely barred, but interference is warranted where the suggested answer is demonstrably incorrect or wholly unacceptable; an arguable alternative or a merely possible different interpretation is insufficient.

The Tribunal also considered Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, Federal Bank Ltd. v. Sagar Thomas and the Shubham Pal decisions in applying that standard.

No statutory provision was identified as a basis for the decision.

The Tribunal considered the applicant’s challenge to Question 88, including his reliance on Federal Bank concerning the availability of mandamus against a company, and his challenge to Question 96, including the 25% marketplace-sales restriction.

It found that the restriction cited for Question 96 concerned the volume of sales through a marketplace by a vendor or its group companies, not a statutory restriction on a foreign-owned e-commerce entity owning sellers on its platform; accordingly, it did not establish that the keyed answer was patently wrong.

The Tribunal distinguished the Shubham Pal example in which the alternative answer was facially incapable of satisfying the question, finding that the present disputes involved interpretation of legal and policy provisions and did not meet that standard.

Although the respondents stated that subject experts had revalidated the answers, the Tribunal said it had independently considered the objections and concluded that no patent error had been demonstrated.

Without such error, the asserted score increase and request for a compensatory attempt did not justify relief.

It dismissed the Original Application, disposed of any pending miscellaneous applications, and made no order as to costs.