Judicial interference in answer keys is permissible where answers are palpably erroneous or demonstrably incorrect.

The Respondent, a Constable in the Delhi Police since 2007, appeared for a promotion examination to the post of Head Constable on December 26, 2021.

Following the publication of the Answer Key, the Respondent and others challenged several questions.

The Paper Setter accepted errors in five questions but rejected the Respondent's objections regarding Questions 24 (age of victim under POCSO) and 34 (who conducts examination-in-chief) of Set D.

The Respondent secured 111 marks, falling one mark short of the 112-mark cut-off for the General Category.

He approached the Central Administrative Tribunal (CAT), which ruled in his favor on October 30, 2025, directing a revision of his results.

The Petitioners (Commissioner of Police) challenged the CAT's order, arguing that the court should not interfere with the Poultry Setter's/expert's domain.

Whether the court can interfere with and re-evaluate answer keys provided by academic experts/paper setters under judicial review.

Whether the answers provided in the official Answer Key for Questions 24 and 34 were demonstrably erroneous or ambiguous, warranting the grant of marks to the Respondent.

The court followed the principle from *Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta* (1983), holding that while answer keys are presumed correct, interference is permissible if they are proved "wrong on the face of it" or demonstrably incorrect to any reasonable person well-versed in the subject.

It further relied on *Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities* (2025), which established that if multiple options are legally correct or the primary option is flawed, candidates choosing either correct option should be awarded marks.

The court also applied Section 137 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, regarding the conduct of examination-in-chief.

provisions of the POCSO (Amendment) Act, 2019.

The Court noted that the subject matter (Law) fell within the expertise of the Tribunal members.

Regarding Question 34, the Court found the official key (Option A – Magistrate) palpably wrong, as Section 137 of the Evidence Act dictates that the *party* calling the witness (the Public Prosecutor) "conducts" the examination, whereas the Magistrate merely "records" it.

Regarding Question 24, the Court found ambiguity; while Option D (Below 18) followed the general definition, Option A (16) was also relevant under Section 4(2) of the POCSO Amendment Act regarding enhanced punishment.

The Court held that in cases of such demonstrable error or ambiguity, the benefit of the doubt must be extended to the candidate.

It held that the Answer Key for Question 34 was factually and legally incorrect and Question 24 was ambiguous.

The Court directed the Petitioners to award the Respondent two additional marks, revise his results, and, if he met the cut-off, grant him the promotion with all consequential benefits.