##PAGE1## ##PAGE2## ##PAGE3## ##PAGE4## ##PAGE5## ##PAGE6##

of answer keys as it is for the experts of said field to deal with these

aspects.

14. Reliance for the above proposition is placed upon the dicta

of the Supreme Court in H.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh

Thakur & Anr. Reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759, wherein it has been

held as under:-

“20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High

Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself,

particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se

merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the

question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the

candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent

I only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining

the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like

Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to

understand as to whether such a course could have been

adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered

opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.

XXX XXX

24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res

integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in

Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary

Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCC 27 :

AIR 1984 SC 1543] , wherein this Court rejected the contention

that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to

this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that

even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations

not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be

challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself

is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as

under : (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16).

“14. ... It is exclusively within the province of the legislature

and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how

the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and

what measures, substantive as well as procedural would

have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the

efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the

Act. ..

****

16. ... The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of

the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate

regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will

fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be

lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and

improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated

in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the

Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its

opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a

foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the

purposes of the Act.”

Page 6 of 10

CGLE 2023 as formulated by the respondents and allow the present

applicant.

17. Therefore this Court, cannot interfere with the opinion of

the experts by simply presuming that the answers sought to be now

substituted by the applicant can be ‘right’ as they have nowhere been

able to prove that the answers as per the revised answer key are

‘wrong’. The same by itself and that too on the basis of analysis by the

applicant can certainly not be sufficient for this Court to accept what is

contended by him for entering the domain of evaluation of answer key

by the experts and seek to alter the answers in the CGLE 2023 as

formulated by the respondents.

18. Besides the aforesaid, the applicant has neither been able

to show or exhibit anything which is and/ or can be glaring and/ or which

depicts any manifest error, in the evaluation process of the CGLE 2023

undertaken by the respondents.

19. In view of the present factual scenario as also the settled

position of law, we are of the view that this Court ought not to reassess

the answers of the appellants in the CGLE 2023. This Court can neither

substitute the actions of the respondents nor sit over appeal and/ or

adjudicate