Courts must defer to expert answer keys unless a material error is plainly demonstrated.

The petitioner appeared in the BPSC 71st Combined Preliminary Competitive Examination. He scored 86.67 marks, below the unreserved-category cut-off of 88, and therefore did not qualify for the Mains examination.

He challenged the marking of Question 66, which asked when Nalanda University was re-established in Bihar. The BPSC treated option D (2014) as correct; the petitioner had selected option A (2007).

The BPSC stated that experts had reviewed the answer key and retained 2014 as the correct answer because the University began functioning that year; the petitioner filed no rejoinder or material challenging the experts’ opinion.

1. Whether the Court should interfere under Article 226 with the BPSC’s evaluation of Question 66 and the expert determination that option D (2014) was correct.

2. Whether the petitioner established grounds for correction of his score from 86.67 to 88 and consequential qualification for the Mains examination.

In Central Board of Secondary Education v. Khushboo Shrivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 523, the Supreme Court held that courts should not substitute their views for examiners’ in academic matters.

In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Court held that where the governing rules do not provide for re-evaluation, judicial intervention is permissible only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is demonstrated clearly, without inferential reasoning; courts should presume the answer key correct, defer to academic expertise, and give the examination authority the benefit of doubt.

The Patna High Court applied the same principles in Bihar Public Service Commission v. Ashish Kumar Pathak, 2021 (1) PLJR 588 (DB), holding that courts should not re-evaluate answer sheets or act as appellate bodies over experts, absent an opinion that is facially absurd or wrong.

The Court treated the correctness of the answer key as an academic matter and noted that BPSC’s experts had considered the contested question and retained 2014 because the University began functioning that year.

Although the petitioner argued that the question concerned re-establishment rather than commencement of functioning, he filed no rejoinder or supporting material to demonstrate that the expert conclusion was materially erroneous or facially absurd.

Applying the principles of judicial restraint in examination matters, the Court declined to determine the answer itself or substitute its assessment for that of the experts.

It found no merit in the writ application and dismissed it; no relief was granted.