The answer key should be assumed correct unless proven wrong, and the court should not interfere with the answer key finalized by the examination agency.

JUDGMENT :

[Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J.]

1. The petitioner in this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeks for issuance of a writ for quashing the final answer key prepared and released by the respondents for the University Grants Commission- National Eligibility Test, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as UGC-NET-2018) and declare a fresh modified answer key with corrected answers.

2. The facts of the case are that on 01.09.2018, the process for online applications for UGC-NET-2018 had commenced. The said test is conducted to determine eligibility for college and university-level lectureship and for the award of Junior Research Fellowship (JRF) for Indian nationals. The examination in question was conducted on 21.12.2018. The petitioner also appeared for the same. On 29.12.2018, the petitioner accessed the tentative answer key of Sociology (Paper-005) and after scrutinizing the tentative answer key, he found that there were some discrepancies with respect to three questions. The petitioner, thereafter, on 31.12.2018, raised his objections after paying the requisite fees. On 05.01.2019, the result of the examination in question was declared and the petitioner was awarded 66% and hence, failed to obtain the cut-off percentage which was 66.67%. The petitioner, thereafter, submitted various representations to the respondents to correct the answer key and to finalise the revised mark sheet. Since no action was taken by the respondent-National Testing Agency (NTA), therefore, the petitioner has approached this court.

3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that he raised objections with respect to three questions. The objection with respect to one question was accepted, however, no correction was made with respect to the other two questions. While pointing out the disputed question Nos.18 and 41, he states that, in view of the material available on record, the finalised answer key by experts is palpably wrong. For the sake of clarity, question Nos. 18 and 41 are reproduced as under:

“18. Question ID 91394326624:- Among the following, there are two statements which can't be true together, but can be false together.

Select the code that represents them:

Statements:

(a) All bats are mammals.

(b) Some bats are mammals.

(c) Some bats are not mammals.

(d) No bats are mammals.

Option 1:- 913943104505 (a) and (b)

Option 2:- 913943104508 (b) and (c)

Option 3:- 913943104506 (a) and (c)

Option 4:- 91394314507 (a) and (c)

41. Question ID 91394326647:- Which among the following envisaged a common educational structure like 10+2+3 as a common core in the curriculum programme?

Option 1:- 913943104591 National Policy on Edu. (NPE), 1986

Option 2:-913943104589 Kothari Commission

Option 3:- 913943104590 Sinha Committee

Option 4:- 91394310592All India Council of Technical Education”

4. The petitioner states that the correct answer to question No.18 should be option No.3, whereas, the respondents have treated option No.2 to be the correct answer. Similarly, he states that with respect to question No.41, the correct answer should be option No.2, whereas, the respondents have accepted option No.1 to be the correct answer.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has taken this court through various materials on which he has placed reliance. According to him, even the Kothari Commission Report itself suggests that the option No.2 is the correct answer and, therefore, there was no reason for the examining agency to have opted for any other option. He has also referred to various literature and documents which, according to him do not require any adjudication as the same are official documents. He has also referred to the notification dated 27.03.1976 of West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Regulations to supplement his case. Learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the cases of Kanpur University & Ors. vs. Samir Gupta & Ors., (1983) 4 SCC 309; Manish U