Manifestly erroneous or ambiguous answer keys warrant cancellation and pro-rata marks for all candidates.

The applicants participated in the Staff Selection Commission examination for appointment as Constable Driver (Male) in Delhi Police. They cleared the Physical Endurance and Measurement Test and the Driving Trade Test but were not selected in the final merit list.

Their grievance concerned two questions in the written examination, bearing Question ID Nos. 26433097916 and 26433098050, for which they alleged that the final answer key contained incorrect or potentially multiple correct answers.

For Question ID No. 26433097916, the final answer key treated Form No. 21 as correct in response to the question asking which form should accompany the sale certificate for permanent registration of a motor vehicle.

For Question ID No. 26433098050, the final answer key accepted the option stating that white or yellow together with black are used for kerb and object marking.

The respondents maintained that the objections had been examined by Subject Matter Experts and that the final answer key had been finalized in accordance with the prescribed procedure.

The applicants’ comparative chart showed that, if marks attributable to the disputed questions were accounted for, each applicant would cross the marks of the last selected candidate in the relevant category.

1. Whether the final answer “Form No. 21” for Question ID No. 26433097916 was manifestly incorrect in light of the statutory forms governing vehicle registration, and whether the answer key was liable to judicial interference.

2. Whether Question ID No. 26433098050 contained more than one correct answer, thereby rendering the final answer key defective and unfair to candidates who selected another correct option.

3. Whether the Tribunal could direct cancellation of the disputed questions, award marks on a pro-rata basis to all candidates, and order preparation of a revised merit list.

The Tribunal applied the principle that courts and tribunals ordinarily defer to the opinion of subject experts in competitive-examination matters and should not undertake routine re-evaluation of answer scripts or substitute their academic view for that of the examining authority, as recognized in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 351, and Mahesh Kumar v. Staff Selection Commission, SLP (C) No. 1951/2022.

However, such deference is not absolute where the answer key is demonstrably or manifestly erroneous, the question is ambiguous, or the expert reasoning fails to address the actual controversy.

Relying on Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, 1984 SCR (1) 73, the Tribunal reiterated that defective or ambiguous questions in objective examinations should not operate to the prejudice of candidates and may require exclusion from evaluation.

It also relied on The Arunachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Miss Hage Mamung, Civil Appeal No. 350 of 2023, decided on 20 January 2023, for the principle that where questions or answer keys are defective, cancellation and pro-rata distribution of marks to all candidates may be adopted to avoid prejudicing any candidate.

The Tribunal further applied the distinction between Form No. 21, which is the sale certificate, and Form No. 20, which is the application for registration requiring the sale certificate to be enclosed.

The Tribunal held that the expert opinion was entitled to weight but could not be treated as conclusive where it failed to address the wording of the question and the relevant statutory material.

Regarding Question ID No. 26433097916, Form No. 21 was expressly titled “Sale Certificate,” while Form No. 20 was the application for registration and specifically contemplated the sale certificate as an enclosure.

The expert’s reasoning—that Form No. 21 proves transfer of ownership—answered a different question and did not explain why Form No. 21 should be the form accompanying the sale certificate. The answer key was therefore unsustainable as framed.

Regarding Question ID No. 26433098050, the official road-safety material supported both the accepted option concerning kerb and object markings and the applicants’ option concerning centre lines on a two-way road.

Since the Expert Committee merely recorded that option No. 2 was correct without reconciling the competing correct proposition, the question suffered from multiple correct answers and could not fairly be used to deny marks to candidates selecting the other supported option.

Given that the applicants would cross the relevant selection thresholds upon correction and that a fresh expert exercise could cause further delay and uncertainty, the Tribunal considered cancellation of both questions and pro-rata allocation of marks to all candidates to be the appropriate remedy.

It directed the respondents to cancel Question ID Nos. 26433097916 and 26433098050, award marks attributable to those questions to all candidates on a pro-rata basis, and prepare and publish a revised merit list accordingly.

The respondents were further directed to reconsider the applicants’ results on the revised basis and, if any applicant fell within the zone of selection and otherwise satisfied the eligibility requirements, to consider appointment, either by creating supernumerary posts or adjusting the candidates against future vacancies, as administratively feasible.

The exercise was directed to be completed preferably within twelve weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.

The applications were disposed of without an order as to costs, and pending miscellaneous applications, if any, were also disposed of.