### Failure to Raise Timely Objections to Provisional Answer Keys Estops Candidates From Challenging Selection Results

The Petitioner (CBSE) issued a recruitment notification on 02.12.2025 for the post of Assistant Secretary, prescribing a two-tier examination.

Results for Tier-I were declared on 02.03.2026; Respondent No. 1 secured 232 marks, falling below the cut-off of 236.

Although a window for raising objections to the provisional answer key was provided from 12.02.2026 to 14.02.2026, Respondent No. 1 failed to raise any objections within the timeframe, doing so only after the results were declared.

The Respondents filed O.A. No. 1260/2026 before the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which passed an interim order on 15.04.2026 permitting them to provisionally appear for the Tier-II examination.

CBSE challenged this interim order via the present writ petition.

1. Whether a candidate who failed to avail the prescribed objection mechanism within the stipulated time can be permitted to challenge the answer key at a belated stage and claim a right to appear in a subsequent examination stage

The Court primarily applied the principles of judicial restraint in academic matters established in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (2018) 2 SCC 357, which holds that courts must presume the correctness of key answers, leave academic matters to experts, and avoid derailing examination processes due to individual grievances.

The doctrine of estoppel as articulated in Salil Maheshwari v. The High Court of Delhi & Anr. (2014) SCC OnLine Del 4563, which stipulates that a candidate cannot challenge a selection process or answer key after participating and discovering an unsuccessful result.

The Court reasoned that the recruitment process provided a specific, transparent window for objections to ensure both fairness and finality.

Respondent No. 1's failure to utilize this mechanism precluded him from reopening the process after the results were finalized, as doing so would undermine the discipline of the examination and create systemic uncertainty.

The Court distinguished the case of Shruti Katiyar v. Registrar General (2024), noting that in that instance, other candidates had raised similar objections timely, whereas here, the respondent was acting in isolation after the deadline.

Consequently, the Court found the Tribunal’s interim relief to be inconsistent with settled law, as judicial review of answer keys is restricted to cases of "patent and demonstrable error," which cannot be entertained if the candidate missed the mandatory procedural deadlines.

The High Court set aside the Tribunal’s interim order dated 15.04.2026 and vacated the provisional permission granted to the Respondents to appear in the Tier-II examination.

The writ petition was allowed, and the proceedings against Respondent No. 2 were declared infructuous due to non-appearance.