Courts cannot re-evaluate exam answer keys or substitute expert opinions unless patently erroneous; presume key correctness; benefit of doubt to examination authority over candidates.

JUDGMENT :

Sandeep Sharma, J.

By way of instant petition, petitioner has prayed for following main reliefs:

“i) Issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction, directing the respondent No.2 to re-evaluate Question No.83 of the Screening Test held on 15.06.2025 by treating both options “A – Dhwani” and “D – Varn” as correct answers as per the books approved by HP Board and NCERT, in the interest of justice.

ii) Direct the respondents to award one (1) along with 0.25 marks for negative marking, thereby revising the total marks of the petitioner as
63.50 marks, and to include his name in the final merit list under the SC category for the post of Constable (Male) and offer him appointment accordingly.

iii) Quash and set aside the rejection order (Annexure P-8) being illegal, arbitrary and violative of Article 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India.”

2. Precisely, the grouse of the petitioner, as has been highlighted in the petition and further canvassed by Mr. Jagat Pal, 1Whether the reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? learned counsel representing the petitioner is that petitioner herein has been wrongly not awarded one mark for his having attempted question No.83, which reads as under:

^^Hkk"kk dh lcls NksVh bdkbZ pqfu,&

(A) /ofu (B) Loj

(C) O;atu (D) o.kZ^^

2.1. As per petitioner, correct answer to aforesaid question was given in option (A) i.e. "/ofu", but yet he has not been awarded one mark qua the same, as a result thereof, he has failed to obtain position in merit by one mark.

3. Having regard to the aforesaid issue raised at the behest of the petitioner, this Court vide order dated 14.11.2025 directed respondent No.2 to have instructions qua aforesaid issue raised at the behest of petitioner. Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel representing the respondent No.2, has placed on record communication dated 20.11.2025, issued by H.P. Public Service Commission, enclosing therewith one sealed cover/letter containing therein question No.83 of Series ‘C’. Bare perusal of aforesaid communication reveals that provisional answer key was uploaded on official website of the Commission on 17.06.2025 and objections were invited from 17.06.2025 to 22.06.2025 from all the appeared candidates. In total 1200 objections were received from candidates concerned against 22 questions, which were forwarded to the subject expert for his opinion, including the question challenged by the petitioner. Opinion of the subject expert has been placed before this Court in sealed cover, perusal whereof reveals that right answer to the question No.83 is option ‘D’ i.e. o.kZ.

4. Learned counsel representing the petitioner, who in terms of advertisement dated 03.10.2024 issued by respondent-Commission for 708 posts of Constable (Male) and 380 posts of Constable (Female), Class-III, Non-Gazetted, in Himachal Pradesh Police Department, applied for the post of Constable (Male), while making this Court making peruse two books namely ^^lkekU; fganh^^ published by Lucent Publication and ^^f'k{kkFkhZ O;kdj.k vkSj O;ogkfjd fganh^^ published by Himachal Pradesh School Education Board, Dharamshala, attempted to argue that correct answer to the question No.83 is option ‘A’ i.e. ^/ofu^.

5. To the contrary, Mr. Vikrant Thakur, learned counsel representing respondent No.2, vehemently argued that correct answer as has been opined by subject expert to the question concerned is ‘वर्ण ’ i.e. option ‘D’. He submitted that otherwise also, by now it is well settled that opinion given by expert cannot be substituted by Court, until same on the face of it is wrong and contrary to the r