JUDGMENT :

Jagmohan Bansal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of order dated 20.09.2024 whereby his objection with respect to Question No. 47 of Part-A in Question Paper Booklet Code B has been declined.

2. The petitioner pursuant to Advertisement No. 5/2023 dated 09.02.2024 applied for the post of TGT (Punjabi). There were 19 posts for Punjabi subject. He appeared in the written test. The respondent had prepared four different sets for the same question paper. The respondent uploaded Answer Key on its site. A number of candidates submitted their objections. The petitioner also submitted his objection with respect to Question No. 47 of Part-A in Question Paper Booklet Code B. The respondent constituted a Committee which examined objections of the candidates including petitioner. The Committee formed an opinion that answer uploaded on the website is correct and there is no need to change the Answer Key.

3. Mr. Akshit Mehta, Advocate submits that from the perusal of material relied upon by respondent, it is evident that answer selected by respondent is incorrect. None of the answers of aforesaid question is correct and respondent has wrongly declared that option 'C' is the correct answer.

4. Ms. Madhu Dayal, Advocate during the course of hearing produced report of Expert Committee which examined all the objections. She submits that from the perusal of report of the Committee, it is evident that they had received 69 objections and Answer Key of each question was re-examined. No infirmity in aforesaid question was found. Except petitioner no other candidate has raised objection with respect to aforesaid question which indicates that, at the most, there is doubt about the answer which cannot permit this Court to re-visit opinion of the experts.

5. I have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record with their able assistance.

6. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in U.P.P.S.C and others Vs. Rahul Singh and others, 2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 2861 while adverting with correctness of answers key has held :

"12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers."

7. Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and others Vs. State of U.P and others (2018) 2 SCC 357 while dealing with the question of revaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets has held :

"30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions.

They are:

(i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it;

(ii) 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 reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed;

(iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no Expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics;

(iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and

(v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-