Final score based on expert-vetted answer keys and awarded grace marks is final and non-revisable.

The applicant, a candidate for the post of Temporary Constable (Executive) in the Delhi Police (2016 Recruitment), challenged the marks awarded by the Staff Selection Commission (SSC) in the written examination held on 08.12.2017.

The applicant belonged to the OBC category and secured 74 marks, while the cut-off was 76 marks.

He contended that the answer key was incorrect and that three erroneous questions were identified by the respondents via an RTI reply dated 13.04.2018. He claimed that had he been granted the benefit of those marks, he would have qualified.

The matter reached the Tribunal seeking a re-evaluation or cancellation of the examination.

During proceedings, the Tribunal summoned the OMR sheet in a sealed cover for independent verification.

1. Whether the applicant was denied the benefit of marks for erroneous questions in the written examination.

2. Whether the applicant's claim of securing higher marks is substantiated by the official examination records.

The court primarily applied Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, governing the adjudication of disputes regarding recruitment and conditions of service.

It adhered to the principle of judicial restraint in academic matters, affirming that the Tribunal is not a "body of subject experts" and should not interfere with the evaluation process unless there is a clear evidence of error.

It relied on the principle of transparency and natural justice by summoning original records (OMR sheets) to verify the veracity of the pleadings against official scores.

The Tribunal analyzed the applicant’s OMR sheet and the respondents' counter-affidavit to verify the scoring. The records revealed that the applicant correctly answered 71 questions.

The respondents demonstrated that the SSC had already identified three erroneous questions (Q. IDs 04, 30, and 69) and had granted the benefit of these marks to all candidates in that shift, including the applicant.

Consequently, the applicant’s final score was calculated as 71 (correct answers) + 3 (benefit marks) = 74.

The Tribunal found that the applicant failed to provide any documentary evidence (such as an online result sheet) to support his claim that he was entitled to more marks.

The court reasoned that since the benefit for the defective questions had already been factored into the final score of 74, which remained below the cut-off of 76, no prejudice was caused.

The Tribunal dismissed the Original Application, stating that hypothetical assumptions cannot form the basis for concluding the applicant should have secured higher marks.

No relief was granted, and the OMR sheet was returned to the respondents.