The court mandated grace marks for incorrect answer keys, emphasizing the priority of accurate assessment in recruitment processes.

ORDER :

 R. NATARAJ, J. 

1. The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent to consider his representation dated 22.10.2025 and reassess the question Nos.86 and 98 in respect of the preliminary examination-2025, 'A' series question paper and make necessary additions and corrections and extend the benefit.

2. (i) The petitioner is one of the candidates who applied in response to a notification dated 10.02.2025 issued for direct recruitment to the post of Civil Judges. The petitioner contends that the preliminary examination was conducted on 11.10.2025 and the provisional answer key was published on 13.10.2025 inviting objections. The respondent had fixed 15.10.2025 as the last date for filing objections. The petitioner filed objections in respect of question Nos.46 and 98. The final answer key was released on 16.10.2025, wherein the objection raised by the petitioner in respect of question No.46 was accepted. However, the objection relating to question No.98 was not accepted. The petitioner thereafter submitted another objection on 22.10.2025 in respect of question Nos.86 and 98. As the said objection was not considered, the petitioner is before this Court.

(ii) The learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that question No.98 was as follows:

"Q no.98. Mob Lynching is an offence under section

E. 117(4)

F. 103(2)(ii)

G. Both (A) & (B)

H. None of the above."

(iii) He contends that the final answer key released by respondent discloses that the correct answers were option 'A' and option 'C'. He submits that he had selected option 'B' but the same was disallowed. He further submits that if option 'C' is treated as correct answer, respondent while accepting option 'A' as the right answer must have also accepted option 'B', as the right answer as option 'C' comprised of both option 'A' and option 'B' as correct answers. He therefore submits that the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of one mark in respect of question No.98.

(iv) In respect of question No.86, he contends that none of the options was the correct answer. However, the final answer key specified option 'D' as the correct answer. For the sake of convenience question No.86 is extracted below:

"Q No.86. The Principal of Vicarious Liability is found in which among the following offence?

A. 107 IPC

B. 153 IPC

C. 120B IPC

D. 34 IPC"

(v) He contends that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (henceforth referred to as 'IPC' for short) cannot be the correct answer, as Section 34 of IPC relates to acts done by persons sharing a common intention, and the concept of vicarious liability is alien to Section 34 of IPC. In support of this contention, he relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Vasanth alias Girish Akbarasab Sanavale and Another Vs. State of Karnataka - 2025 SCC Online SC 337 where it was held that "the net result of the above discussion is that although Section 34 deals with a criminal act which is joint and an intention which is common, it cannot be said that it completely ignores or eliminates the element of personal contribution or the individual offender in both these respects. It is a condition precedent of Section 34 of IPC that the individual offender must have participated in the offence in both these respects. He must have done something, however slight, or conduct himself in some manner, however nebulous whether by doing an act or by omitting to do an act so as to indicate that he was a participant in the offence and a guilty associate in it. He must also be individually a party to an intention which he must share in common with others."

(vi) He therefore, submits that th