The court established that an expert committee's evaluation of answer keys in recruitment processes is presumptively correct, allowing judicial restraint unless glaring errors are evident.

ORDER :

This Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking to declare the action of respondent No.2 in changing the correct options from the preliminary key/response sheet to the final key/question paper preview for Question Nos.26 (Question I.D. No.630680217894), 27 (Question I.D. No.630680217921), 63 (Question I.D. No.630680380422) and 64 (Question I.D. No.630680380429) and in not considering the objection raised with respect to Question No.65 (Question I.D. No.630680389642) in the examination conducted by the respondent company for the post of Assistant Foreman Trainee (Electrical) on 06.08.2024 pursuant to Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024, as illegal, arbitrary and violative of Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and to consequently direct respondent No.2 to refer and re-evaluate Question Nos.26, 27, 63, 64 and 65 (bearing Question I.D. Nos.630680217894, 630680217921, 630680380422, 630680380429 and 630680389642 respectively) through an independent and competent expert committee.

2. Heard Sri Ramesh Chilla, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.Sri Harsha Reddy, learned Standing Counsel for Singareni Collieries Company Limited, appearing for the respondents.

3. The case of the petitioner is as follows:

The petitioner belongs to the BC-A community and, in response to Employment Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024 issued by respondent No.1, inviting applications for the post of Assistant Foreman Trainee (Electrical) comprising a total of 24 posts, he applied for the said post and appeared for the written examination conducted on 06.08.2024. Subsequently, the preliminary key was made available on the website on 13.08.2024 and the candidates were allowed to submit objections to the same from 13.08.2024 to 15.08.2024 by uploading supporting documents or material in PDF/JPEG format as attachments. The petitioner’s responses for Question Nos.26 (Question I.D. No.630680217894), 27 (Question I.D. No.630680217921), 63 (Question I.D. No.630680380422), and 64 (Question I.D. No.630680380429) were tallying with the preliminary key, and therefore, no objections were required to be filed in respect of these questions. However, the petitioner raised an objection in respect of Question No.65 (Question I.D. No.630680389642). Thereafter, the final key/question paper preview was made available on 26.09.2024, wherein the petitioner noticed that the respondents had altered the options from the preliminary key for Question Nos.26, 27, 63 and 64, while the objection raised by the petitioner in respect of Question No.65 was not considered. Hence, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition.

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner secured 81 marks and holds 47^th rank and if the additional marks for those questions were counted, the petitioner would rank among the top candidates in the BC-A community, thereby securing one of the two posts reserved for that category. Further, the petitioner raised an objection to only one question, as the remaining questions reflected correct answers in the preliminary key and therefore did not warrant any objections. It is further submitted that in similar circumstances, this Court, in W.P. Nos.11810 and 18335 of 2020, vide order dated 03.03.2021, disposed of the said Writ Petitions by directing the respondents to refer the disputed question therein to an expert committee within a reasonable period and the said order was subsequently confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 29.10.2021 in W.A. Nos.126, 133 and 406 of 2021. Further, in the case of Bihar Staf