JUDGMENT :

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J. (Oral)

Since common question of law and facts are involved in all these petitions, they are decided by this common judgment.

2. The challenge in these petitions is made to the provisional recommendation list dated 09.02.2025 issued by the Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission (“the Commission”) for appointment to the position of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade in the State of Uttarakhand. The challenge is made on the ground that the answer key of many questions issued by the Commission is wrong.

3. Facts briefly stated are as follows. The Commission invited applications from qualified candidates for appointment of 1544 vacant posts of Assistant Teacher, L.T. Grade on 14.03.2024. On 18.08.2024, written examination was conducted. On 24.08.2024, the Commission issued and uploaded the provisional answer key on its website seeking representation against the provisional answer key. Various representations were received by the Commission. Subsequent to it, the answer key was revised and published on 10.01.2025. Thereafter, the candidates were called for documents verification from 13.01.2025 to 28.01.2025. Finally, the provisional recommendation list dated 09.02.2025 was prepared by the Commission and recommendations for appointment were made. The petitioners have challenged answer key to many questions. The details of those questions would be discussed in a short while.

4. It is the case of the petitioners that the answer key is not based on material. It is palpably wrong qua many questions which are impugned.

5. It is the case of the Commission that after the publication of the provisional answer key, when representations were received, in order to resolve the issues, the Commission constituted a Subject Expert Committee and based on the opinion of the Subject Expert Committee the final answer key has been published. It is also the case of the Commission that when there are conflicting views then the Court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. On delay also the Commission has raised the issue that, in fact, on 10.01.2025, the final answer key had already been published. Thereafter, the petitioners participated in the documents verification and after going through the entire process, the answer key has been challenged, which should not be entertained.

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record.

7. Fairness and transparencies are essentials for any public examination. Needless to say, the Commission has also acted to ensure fairness and transparency in the process. After publication of the provisional answer key, representations were invited. It is definitely a step to ensure fairness and transparency so that merit may not become a casualty. Thereafter, admittedly, the answer key was revised based on the expert opinion. But still it is being agitated that the final answer key published by the Commission is not correct. The Court may not act as an expert. The scope of judicial review in such matter is much guided.

8. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 the principles have been summed up by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as below:-

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

30.1. 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;

30.2. 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 re-evaluation 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;

30.3. The court should not at a