Courts should defer to the opinion of subject experts in public examinations and should not interfere with the examination process unless there is a glaring mistake that is totally apparent without any inferential process of reasoning.

JUDGMENT :

MANOJ KUMAR TIWARI, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Since common questions of law and facts are involved in these writ petitions, therefore, they are heard together and are being decided by a common judgment. However, for sake of brevity, facts of Writ Petition (S/S) No. 3622 of 2018 alone are being considered and discussed.

3. Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission issued an advertisement on 26.11.2015, inviting applications for appointment as Village Panchayat Development Officer. Petitioner, who belongs to General Category, responded to the said advertisement. According to petitioner, the Selecting Body issued admit card to him for appearing in the written examination, pursuant to which, he had appeared in the written examination held on 25.02.2018.

4. It is not in dispute that petitioner scored 67.75 marks, out of 100 marks; while, the score of marks of last General Category Candidate in the said selection is, 68.75. Thus, there is difference of only 1 mark.

5. It is the contention of the petitioner that he had indicated option (D) as correct answer to question no. 50 of Question Booklet Series ‘B’ however, the Selecting Body treated option (C) as correct answer to the said question. Consequently, petitioner was not only denied one mark for the said correct answer; but, he was also subjected to negative marking of .25 marks, as a result, his score was reduced by 1.25 marks, which resulted in denial of appointment to him. Question No. 50 of Question Booklet Series ‘B’ is reproduced below:

“50. The origin of Sarda (Kali) is:

(A) Pindari

(B) Kafni

(C) Milam

(D) None of the above.”

6. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that in the proposed answer key, which was uploaded on the website of the Selecting Body immediately after the written examination, answer (D) was shown as correct answer to the aforesaid question, however, in the revised answer key, option (C) was treated as correct answer to question no. 50.

7. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon certain documents in support of his contention that options (A), (B) and (C) to question no. 50, do not give the correct answer, therefore, option (D) alone would be the correct answer to the said question.

8. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for the Selecting Body submits that soon after the written examination, proposed answer key was uploaded on the website and objections were invited from the candidates regarding any wrong question or answer to any question, which is wrongly treated as correct in the proposed answer key. He further submits that as many as 36 objections were received in respect of the aforesaid question and all the objections were sent to the Expert Committee. He further submits that the Expert Committee met on 26.03.2018 and decided that the correct answer to the aforesaid question is Option (C) and not (D) and accordingly, answer to aforesaid question no. 50 was corrected in the revised answer key.

9. Learned counsel appearing for the Selecting Body further submits that the provisional answer key was uploaded on the website on 25.02.2018 and revised answer key was uploaded on 01.05.2018, however, the writ petition was filed after declaration of final result on 11.10.2018. Thus, he submits that the writ petition is not maintainable, as petitioner had not filed any objection against proposed answer key, when it was invited and also on the ground that the writ petition was filed after declaration of final result. Therefore, the sole question, which falls for consideration is whether option (D) to the aforesaid question is correct answer, as contended by petitioner or whether option (C) would be the correct answer, as contended by the Selecting Body.

10. It is settled position in law that this Court cannot take upon itself task of Examiner or Selecting Body and examine the discrepancies and inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof. It is equally well settled that Constitutional