Courts must defer to expert answer keys absent a glaring, demonstrable error.

The petitioners participated in a recruitment examination for Assistant Engineer posts conducted by the Karnataka Examination Authority after an earlier examination had been set aside.

They challenged the final answer key for Question 59 in the B3 version, contending that option 3—not the Authority’s chosen option 2—was correct.

Their objections were considered and rejected by an expert committee, which selected option 2 after considering relevant textbooks.

The petitioners sought one mark for the question and consequential revision of their rankings

1. Whether the Court could interfere under Articles 226 and 227 with the expert committee’s selection of option 2 as the correct answer to Question 59, and direct the award of a mark to the petitioners.

2. Whether the petitioners demonstrated a patent or glaring error in the answer key sufficient to warrant judicial interference.

Under Articles 226 and 227, courts must exercise restraint when reviewing answer keys and examination results, as academic questions are best assessed by subject-matter experts.

Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759, Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357, Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254, and Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309, establish that courts should presume the answer key correct, should not themselves re-evaluate academic questions, and should interfere only where an error is clearly demonstrated without inferential reasoning; in case of doubt, the benefit goes to the examining authority.

The Court also relied on Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission v. Ashok Yadav, 2026 SCC OnLine SC 1893, which reiterates that judicial review may be warranted for a glaring error or where a question admits multiple correct answers despite requiring one, but not where the examining body’s answer is reasonably sustainable.

The Court found that the expert committee had considered the objections and that the competing answers were supported by different textbooks.

Because the question had been interpreted differently in academic sources, the dispute did not establish a glaring, self-evident error in the answer key.

Determining which interpretation was preferable would require the Court to assess academic material and substitute its view for that of the expert committee, a course barred by the principles governing judicial review of examination answers.

Both writ petitions were rejected.