Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24268
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Peeyoosh Tiwari – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
WPS No. 65 of 2020
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Apoorva Pandey
For the Respondents: Amit Buxy, Saurabh Kumar Pande
Courts must exercise restraint and defer to the opinion of expert committees regarding the correctness of answer keys in examinations, as judges lack specialized expertise in all academic fields.
Headnote:(A) Judicial Restraint - Expert Opinion - Courts should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of experts in academic matters as judges are not experts in all fields. (Para 6)
(B) Examination Process - Re-evaluation of Answer Keys - Courts should presume the correctness of key answers and only interfere in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is clearly demonstrated without inferential reasoning. (Para 7)
Issues: Whether the court can interfere with the final answer key determined by an expert committee of the examination board.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. dispute over the correctness of specific questions in the final answer key for a lecturer-biology examination. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. the court's observation that the final answers were determined by a reasoned report from an expert committee. (Para 4 , 5) |
| 3. judicial deference to academic experts and the presumption of correctness of the answer key. (Para 6 , 7) |
| 4. dismissal of the petition based on the principle of non-interference with expert academic opinions. (Para 8) |
Order on Board
(Single Bench)
1. The petitioner, in this writ petition, has sought a relief to direct the respondents to re-examine the petitioner’s answers No. 10, 46, 52, 68 & 148 with respect to Set- C or in alternative get the model answer re-examined and prepare the final answer and the merit list be published and proceed accordingly.
2. Ms. Apoorva Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that in the first model answer with regard to Question Nos. 10, 68 & 148, the answer given by the respondents in the first model answer were correct and the petitioner also gave the same answers. However, for the same questions the answers were changed in the final model answer and question No.148 was deleted. She further submits that total 5 questions and their answers were wrongly considered by the respondent Examination Board and are required to be duly corrected upon proper consideration of the answers marked by the petitioner and the supporting material placed on record.
3. Dr. Saurabh Kumar Pande, learned counsel for the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, would submit that the Claims & Objections raised by the petitioner to correct the answers in respect of Question No.10, 46, 52, 68, 148 (5 Questions of Set-C) for the post of Lecturer-Biology were sent to the expert committee and the expert committee duly considered those answers and considered the Claims & Objections raised by the petitioner and thereafter, the final answer has been given, which has been accepted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. He relied upon the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh & Another1(2018) 7 SCC 254.
4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
5. In this regard, the petitioner is disputing certain final answers given by the expert committee with regard to question No.10, 46, 52, 68 and the question No.148 in Set-C has been deleted. All the final answers have been given by the expert committee and the report has been filed separately. The expert committee has considered the questions and answers and thereafter, with a reasoning, the final answers have been given by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board.
6. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rahul Singh (supra) has clearly held that the judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts and observed in para 14 as under :
“14. In the present case, we find that all the three questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain textbooks. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.”
7. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others2(2018) 2 SCC 357 held in para 30 as under :-
“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,
