Courts should not re-evaluate examination answer sheets absent clear, exceptional, demonstrable material error.

The petitioner filed a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging the marks awarded to him in an examination conducted by the Madhya Pradesh Public Service Commission.

He sought a declaration that the marks were illegal, re-allotment or re-evaluation of marks for answers attempted by him through a subject expert, and appointment if, after re-evaluation, he became eligible for selection.

The respondents relied on the Full Bench decision in Nitin Pathak v. State of M.P. and Others, W.A. No. 581 of 2017, decided on 4 September 2017, which held that courts should not ordinarily refer disputed answer keys or answer sheets to court-appointed experts in exercise of judicial review.

The petitioner opposed dismissal but was unable to distinguish his case from Nitin Pathak.

Whether the High Court, in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226, should direct re-evaluation or re-allotment of marks through a subject expert in the absence of a clearly demonstrated material error in the answer key or evaluation process.

Whether the petitioner was entitled to appointment if re-evaluation of his answer sheet resulted in his becoming eligible for selection.

The Court applied the principle that judicial review in academic and examination matters is concerned with the decision-making process, not with substituting the Court’s opinion for that of academic experts; courts should not ordinarily refer answer keys or answer sheets to court-appointed experts or act as appellate authorities over expert opinions, particularly where no mala fides are alleged (Nitin Pathak v. State of M.P. and Others).

Relying on Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Another, (2018) 2 SCC 357, the Court held that re-evaluation or scrutiny may be ordered as of right only where the governing statute, rule, or regulation permits it; otherwise, it can be directed only in rare and exceptional cases where the candidate demonstrates, clearly and without inferential reasoning, that a material error has occurred and that the key answer is demonstrably incorrect.

Courts must be extremely cautious, must not themselves re-evaluate answer sheets, and sympathy or perceived individual injustice cannot justify derailing the examination process.

The petitioner challenged the marks awarded to him and sought examination of his answers by a subject expert.

However, the Court found that the governing legal principles in Nitin Pathak directly covered the controversy and that the petitioner could not distinguish his case from that decision.

Under Nitin Pathak, the Court could not assume the role of an appellate body over the examination authorities or refer the matter to a court-appointed expert merely because the petitioner disputed the evaluation.

The further principles in Ran Vijay Singh required a clear and demonstrable material error, established without inferential reasoning, before exceptional judicial intervention could be considered; no such basis was established in the present case.

Consequently, the claims for re-evaluation, revised marks, and consequential appointment could not be sustained.

It declined to declare the petitioner’s marks illegal, refused to direct re-allotment or re-evaluation through a subject expert, and therefore granted no consequential relief of appointment.