ORDER :

(C.V. KARTHIKEYAN, J.)

The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified Mandamus seeking records relating to the provisional selection list dated 20.02.205 in PSL No.01/MRB/2024 with respect to the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) issued by the second respondent and quash the same in so far as the non selection of the petitioner is concerned and direct the respondents to constitute an Expert Committee to re-assess the revised answer key for Question No.5 and Question No.20 and direct the second respondent to re-issue the provisional selection list for the said post and select the petitioner herein.

2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been contended that the writ petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) consequent to a notification issued by the second respondent. The petitioner attended the examination held on 05.01.2025. The tentative answer keys were revised by the second respondent on 08.01.2025. The petitioner had obtained 58 marks instead of 61 marks which he expected he would receive. He challenges the correctness of the key answers given to Question Nos. 5 and 20.

3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that with respect to question No.5, the key answer suggested by the respondent was 'a'. On the other hand, the petitioner claims that the answer given by him, namely, 'b' alone is correct. With respect to question No.20, the petitioner contends that the key answer given namely, 'd' is wrong and that the correct answer is 'b'. In this connection, with respect to question No.5, the petitioner had placed reliance on the reference material, Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine, 24^th edition. With respect to question No.10, the petitioner placed reliance on the study materials Harrison's Mannual of Medicine 20^th Edition at Page No.714 and Ganong's Review of Medical Physiology 26^th Edition. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the respondents must therefore form a separate committee to examine the correctness of the key answers provided by them and verify whether the key answers as given by the petitioner alone are correct.

4. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit stating that the petitioner had not independently submitted any representation to the second respondent raising objections as to the correctness of the key answers.

5. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the Judgment reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 [ Kanpur University and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others ] and placed specific reference to paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 20 which are as follows:-

“16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the