JUDGMENT :

Shaji P. Chaly, J.

The appeal is preferred by the first respondent in W.P.(C) No. 20982 of 2019 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 19.11.2019, whereby the learned single Judge directed the appellant to revise the marks of the writ petitioners in the UGC National Eligibility Test (NET) held in June, 2019 against the question ID No. 64635010128 holding that none of the options given in the answer key to the question are correct.

2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows:

Writ petitioners are post graduates in History and also possessing M. Phil. They appeared for the test for acquiring qualification as Assistant Professor; and the 2nd writ petitioner for the post of Junior Research Fellow also. Before the publication of the results of the Test, when the answer key of the Test was published by the appellant, the writ petitioners challenged the correctness of the answers in respect of question ID 64635010128 and ID 64635010156. However, the challenge was not accepted and the final answer key was published on 09.07.2019. The results of the examinations were published on 13th June, 2019. The first petitioner secured 54% marks; whereas the cut off marks for the eligibility of Assistant Professor was 54.67% for the unreserved category to which the first petitioner belongs. The second petitioner falling within the OBC (NCL Category), secured 57.33%; whereas, the cut off marks for Junior Research Fellow and Assistant Professor is 58% and for Assistant Professor 50%, insofar as OBC (NCL) candidates are concerned. Therefore, according to the second writ petitioner, he has become qualified only for the post of Assistant Professor. According to the 1st writ petitioner, if the challenge to the answers to the two questions were accepted and resultantly removed from the question papers, she would have got 4 marks additionally, and thus qualified for the post of Assistant Professor, and insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, 4 marks would have made him qualified for the post of Junior Research Fellow also, by scoring 58.67%.

3. The case of the petitioners is that since challenge to the answer key was not responded to, they have no other option except to challenge the action of the appellant by filing the writ petition. However, the learned single Judge found that even though the answer key of two questions were challenged before the authority, only the challenge in question ID No. 64635010128 was within the timeline provided in the brochure, and therefore the issue with respect to the said answer key alone was considered and attained finality.

4. The appellant has filed a statement before the learned single Judge basically contending that the test was conducted by the appellant between 20.06.2019 and 26.06.2019 across the nation and the writ petitioners had appeared in the test on 20.06.2019. It is also the case of the appellant that as per the Information Bulletin of UGCNET, 2019, the answer key of the question is displayed on the website of NTA for two or three days before the publication of the result, thus providing an opportunity for challenge, making a payment of Rs.1000 as processing charges; and it is provided in clause 12.1 of the Information Bulletin that the decision of the appellant on the challenge shall be final, and the result will be declared on the basis of the final answer keys; that the final answer keys were uploaded on the NTANET website, www.ntanet.nic.in on 12.07.2019; that the final answer keys are decided by the experts after giving due consideration of the challenges by the subject experts; and that the results published by the appellant are based on the decision of the subject experts.

5. It was further contended that the writ petitioners themselves had admitted the expertise of the second respondent in paragraph 3 of the writ petition and has stated