Expert committee findings on examination answer keys are final absent proven arbitrariness or perversity.

The applicants applied for the post of Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police and appeared for a written examination on November 16, 2014, after previous sessions were cancelled

The initial results were declared on July 13, 2015, and revised on July 17, 2015, to include bonus marks for candidates exceeding 178 cm in height as per Standing Order No. 212/2011

The applicants failed to meet the cut-off in the revised list

Following a challenge in prior OAs (Nos. 3657/2015 and 4258/2015), the Tribunal directed the respondents to constitute an Expert Committee to examine grievances regarding the answer key

The Committee declared 21 questions null/void and corrected several answer keys, leading to a final re-evaluation of all candidates using a scaling method

A final select list was published on February 22, 2016

The applicants, who again failed to secure marks above the revised cut-off, filed the present O.A. alleging that more than 30 questions were wrong and seeking additional bonus marks

1. Whether the respondents’ action in declaring the final select list based on the Expert Committee’s recommendations was arbitrary or illegal?

2. Whether the applicants are entitled to additional bonus marks for questions not identified as incorrect by the Expert Committee?

3. Whether the Tribunal can substitute its own assessment of a question paper for that of a duly constituted Expert Committee?

The court primarily applied the principle of limited judicial review in academic matters, which mandates that courts should not interfere with the findings of an expert body unless they are shown to be mala fide, arbitrary, or perverse

It further relied on the precedent set in Sandeep Kumar v. C.P., Delhi & Ors. (OA No. 969/2016), which established that once a revised final result is published based on expert re-evaluation, all prior results become non est and cannot be used as a basis for appointment claims

The court also upheld the principle of administrative fairness via the uniform application of scaling methods to all candidates following the identification of void questions

The Tribunal observed that the recruitment process underwent rigorous scrutiny, including a comprehensive review by an Expert Committee constituted specifically to address discrepancies in the answer key

The respondents implemented the Committee’s recommendations by treating 21 questions as void and applying a uniform scaling method to ensure parity among all 39,597 candidates

The court noted that the applicants failed to provide substantive material to prove that the Expert Committee's methodology was irrational or that additional questions were demonstrably incorrect

Following the rule that judicial review is restricted in technical/academic evaluations, the Tribunal held that it could not substitute its judgment for the Expert Body's findings

Furthermore, the court emphasized that the applicants' failure to meet the final cut-off—even after receiving the benefit of the void questions—precludes them from claiming a right to selection

It held that the final result dated February 22, 2016, is valid and the prior result dated July 17, 2015, is non est

The court concluded that the applicants, being similarly situated to those in the dismissed case of Sandeep Kumar v. C.P., Delhi, are not entitled to additional relief as they did not meet the prescribed cut-off marks after a fair re-evaluation

No costs were awarded