Punjab & Haryana HC Denies Anticipatory Bail in Murder via Humiliation Case: Sections 103(1) & 3(5) BNS
07 Mar 2026
Security Deposit Forfeiture Without Show-Cause Notice Violates Natural Justice: Himachal Pradesh High Court
07 Mar 2026
S.202 CrPC Inquiry Not Mandatory for Public Servant Complaints If Accused Outside Jurisdiction: Supreme Court
09 Mar 2026
Professor MP Singh: Shaper of Constitutional Discourse
09 Mar 2026
Right to Promotion is Legitimate Expectation; Marriage-Based Transfer Can't Defeat It: Himachal Pradesh High Court
12 Mar 2026
Section 4 Official Secrets Act Presumption and Prima Facie Evidence Bar Bail in Espionage Case: Punjab & Haryana HC
14 Mar 2026
Centre Revokes Wangchuk's NSA Detention Amid SC Challenge
14 Mar 2026
No Interference Allowed in Religious Prayers on Private Premises: Allahabad HC Cites Maranatha Precedent
14 Mar 2026
No Proof of Absolute Ownership by Mizo Chiefs Bars Fundamental Rights Claim Under Article 31: Supreme Court
14 Mar 2026
Back
Next 
TARLOK SINGH CHAUHAN, SATYEN VAIDYA
Arpan Sharma – Appellant
Versus
State of H. P. – Respondent
Headnote: Read headnote
JUDGMENT :
Tarlok Singh Chauhan, J.
Since common questions of law and facts arise for consideration in both these petitions, they are taken up together for consideration and are now being disposed of vide common judgment.
2. The respondents vide advertisement dated 19.12.2018, invited applications from the eligible candidates for filling up the post of TGT (Non-Medical). The petitioners being fully eligible applied for the same and appeared in the written test held for the said purpose. According to the petitioners, the respondents released the provisional answer key of all the series of question paper and invited objections. Since the petitioners found some of key answers to be incorrect, they too raised objections. Later, the respondents on 28.6.2019 declared the result, wherein the petitioners were declared as successful and were called for written objective test. However, when the final result for the post was declared on 5.8.2019, the petitioners were stunned and surprised to see that their names do not find mention in the final select list only becaus
Point of Law : Practice of calling for answer scripts/answer sheets and thereafter to order re-evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in relevant rules for re-evaluation and tha....
Judicial review in matters of academic evaluation is limited, and courts should defer to expert opinions unless there are specific provisions allowing for re-evaluation.
Point of Law : if a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-ev....
Judicial review is justified in cases of demonstrable error in examination answer keys, ensuring fair evaluation and selection processes.
The court reaffirmed that examination key answers should be presumed correct unless explicit evidence shows otherwise, emphasizing judicial restraint in academic matters.
Judicial review of examination answer keys is limited; courts should not interfere unless a demonstrable error is shown, respecting the expertise of academic authorities.
Judicial review of answer keys is limited; courts should not substitute their judgment for that of experts unless errors are clearly demonstrable.
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
Listen Article