JUDGMENT :

JAGMOHAN BANSAL, J.

1. The petitioner through instant petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is seeking setting aside of answer key to the extent of Question Nos. 9, 38 & 57 issued with respect to Advertisement No.3/2021 for the post of Sub Inspector.

2. Pursuant to Advertisement No.3/2021, the petitioner applied for the post of Sub Inspector. The selection process comprised (a) written test, (b) Physical Screening Test (for short 'PST'), (c) Physical Measurement Test (for short 'PMT') and (d) scrutiny of documents. The merit list was to be drawn on the basis of marks obtained in the written test as well as marks of additional qualification and Socio Economic Criteria.

3. The petitioner appeared in the written test held on 26.09.2021. On 19.10.2021, the respondent uploaded answer key on its website and invited objections from candidates. A number of candidates submitted their objections with respect to different questions, however, the petitioner did not raise any objection. He was called for PST, PMT and scrutiny of documents. He was awarded 67.20 marks which included 59.20 marks of interview, 3 for higher qualification and 5 under Socio Economic Criteria. Many unsuccessful candidates filed complaints against selected candidates alleging that they have filed false documents while claiming benefit under Socio Economic Criteria. The respondent scrutinized documents of different candidates including petitioner. 30 candidates including petitioner came to be ousted because they had wrongly claimed marks under Socio Economic Criteria. The petitioner’s father was in government job still he filed affidavit to the effect that there is no member of his family who is in government job, thus, he is entitled to 5 marks under Socio Economic Criteria. He started raising question about authenticity of answer key.

4. Learned counsel for petitioner submits that answer of Question Nos. 9, 38 & 57 was incorrectly determined by respondent. He has given correct answer still was denied marks.

5. Per contra, learned State counsel submits that respondent received objections from different candidates with respect to answer key uploaded on website. The matter was referred to Chief Examiner who sought opinion of subject experts. Answer key was revised as per opinion of experts. There was no revision of answer of Question Nos. 9, 38 & 57. The revised result was declared on 28.02.2022. The petitioner was selected, thus, was not aggrieved at that stage, however, started raising objection the moment his candidature was rejected on account of denial of 5 marks under Socio Economic Criteria.

6. Heard the arguments and perused the record.

7. From perusal of record, it is evident that petitioner claimed 5 marks under Socio Economic Criteria. He claimed that nobody from his family is or was in government job. On inquiry against many candidates including petitioner, it was found that petitioner’s father was in Delhi Police, thus, he wrongly claimed 5 marks under Socio Economic Criteria. He was selected, however, was denied post on account of denial of 5 marks under Socio Economic Criteria. He scored 67.20 marks which included 5 marks under Socio Economic Criteria. As soon as 5 marks under Socio Economic Criteria were deleted, his marks became less than cut-off marks. The petitioner is guilty of filing false documents still has approached this Court seeking revision of answer key.

8. The petitioner has doubted answer to three questions. For the ready reference, all the questions in dispute are reproduced as below:

9. Before dwelling into issue involved, it would be apposite to have bird's eye view of judicial precedents.

10. The Supreme Court in U.P.P.S.C & Another V/s Rahul Singh & Another, 2018 AIR (Supreme Court) 2861 while adverting to correctness of answers key has held that the law is well settled that onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the answer key is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally