The Court cannot re-evaluate the correctness of the answers in the answer key unless the error is self-evident, and the onus is on the candidate to demonstrate a glaring mistake in the key answer.

1. The grievance of the petitioner is regarding certain errors–as he perceives them to be–in the answer key issued and circulated by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in respect of the Central Teacher Eligibility Test (CTET) held by it on 9th December, 2018, in which the petitioner participated. According to the petitioner, certain answers, in the answer key, were erroneous. The writ petition complains that though the said errors were pointed out by the petitioner, in his representation to the CBSE, the revised answer key, as circulated by the CBSE, did not correct the said errors.

2. While examining such matters, the jurisdiction of this Court is circumscribed by the law, well settled in this regard, in a catena of pronouncements by the Supreme Court. One may refer, with advantage, to a recent decision, in UPPSC v. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254. In the said case, too, the candidate was aggrieved with the answer key issued by the authority concerned. In para 12 to 14 of the judgment, the Supreme Court cautioned all Courts, dealing with such matters, in the following words :

“12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of - (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.

13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the 9 Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct.

14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.”

(Emphasis Supplied)

3. Viewed in the background of the law as enunciated in Rahul Singh (supra), I am of the opinion that no case for interference by this Court in the present matter can be said to exist.

4. The grievance of the petitioner relates to the answers to Question Nos. 4, 12, 66, 71, 81, 85, 90, 95 and 110 in the answer key. A tabulated representation of the questions, the answers as contained in the answer key circulated by the CBSE, and the correct answer, in the perception of the petitioner, may be provided thus:

Question. No.	Question	Answer in the answer key	Correct answer according to the petitioner
4.	Teacher can utilize both assessment for learning and assessment of learning to –