The court has the power to interfere in the correctness of answers provided in competitive examinations and can examine question papers and answer sheets itself. An opinion of the expert is subject to judicial review, especially when the statutory authority exceeds its jurisdiction.

S.K.Gangele, J:-

All these appeals have been heard together and have been disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of description of facts, the facts mentioned in W.A. No.233/2012 (Chanchal Modi v. State of M.P. and another) have been taken into consideration.

2. All these connected appeals have been filed by the candidates, who appeared in written examination conducted by the respondent Public Service Commission to the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer, but could not get selected.

3. The appellants pleaded that they had answered some of the questions correctly, however the Public Service Commission (PSC) prescribed wrong model answers due to which the appellants could not get proper marks and their marks had also been reduced on account of negative marking.

4. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants on the ground that the answers were examined by the experts appointed by the PSC. If there was any defect of answers, it was applicable to all the candidates, hence, no interference is warranted.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the answers prescribed in the model answer sheet by the PSC in regard to some questions are apparently wrong, in such circumstances, the court has power to interfere. It is further submitted that due to arbitrary answers, the appellants have adversely been affected because they have mentioned correct answers but they have not been given the numbers. The appellants have wrongly been denied selection. In support of their contentions, learned counsel relied on the following judgments :-

(i) Dayal Singh v. State of Uttaranchal - (2012) 8 SCC 263

(ii) R. Sarangapani v. Tahsildar - (2011) 14 SCC 177

(iii) Sahebrao Mohan Berad v. State of Maharashtra - (2011) 4 SCC 249

(iv) Kerala SEB v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd. - (2005) 6 SCC 651

(v) Lily Thomas v. Union of India - (2000) 6 SCC 224

6. Learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the PSC has contended that the answers prescribed in the model answer sheet were based on the opinion given by the experts. There may be two views possible on a particular answer, however, on this ground the court could not interfere in the matter as held by the Writ Court. It is further submitted that the appellants did not make complaint to the PSC. PSC itself cancelled some questions and awarded 'zero' (o) marks to the candidates. The appellants did not join selected candidates as party, hence, no relief can be granted in favour of the appellants. In support of his contentions, learned senior counsel relied on the following judgments :-

(i) Anjali Saxena v. Chairman, P.E. Board, Bhopal – AIR 1990 MP 253

(ii) ICFAI v. Council of the Institute of Chartered Accountants of India (2007) 12 SCC 210

(iii) P.B. Samant v. Union of India - AIR 2009 (NOC) AP 1505 (Bom.)

(iv) Babulal Parate v. State of Bombay - AIR 1960 SC 51

(v) Radhey Shyam Khemka v. State of Bihar - (1993) 3 SCC 54

(vii) State of U.P. v. Netra Pal Singh - (2004) 4 SCCC 748

(viii) Ishwar Singh v. Kuldip Singh – 1995 Supp (1) SCC 179

(ix) Sushma Suri v. Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi - (1999) 1 SCC 330.

7. PSC issued an advertisement in regard to selection/recruitment to 193 posts of Assistant District Prosecution Officer (ADPO). A written examination was held and the candidates were required to answer two sets of question papers; 10 ADPO I & 10 ADPO II. A candidate had to answer 150 objective type questions. All questions were compulsory. If a candidate answered correct question, two (2) marks were awarded and if the answer was wrong minus one (-1) mark was awarded. The appellant was called for interview after written examination. The appellant was awarded 483 marks out of 600 in the written examination and 9 marks out of 50 in the interview. Cut off marks was 503 for OBC candidate.

8. The contention of the appellant is that if he would have had awarded correct marks, then he could easily scored more than minimum cut off marks, henc