Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Guj) 11715
IN THE HIGH COURT OF GUJARAT AT AHMEDABAD
Nikhil S. Kariel, J
Jaymin Mukeshbhai Patel – Appellant
Versus
Union of India – Respondent
R/SPECIAL CIVIL APPLICATION NO. 12450 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Megha Jani, Krisha M Bhimani
For the Respondents: Harsheel D Shukla, Pradip D Bhate, Bhagyodaya Mishra
A candidate can seek judicial interference in competitive examinations if the answer key is prima facie erroneous based on constitutional provisions, especially when the late publication of answer keys by the conducting body causes significant prejudice.
Headnote:The petitioner challenged the UPSC's assessment of a question in General Studies Paper-I of the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2024, which allegedly deprived him of the opportunity to appear in the Mains Examination for the Indian Forest Service (IFS). The case centered on Articles 112 and 113 of the Constitution of India regarding the Annual Financial Statement and demands for grants. The court found that the UPSC's final answer key incorrectly stated that the Annual Financial Statement is laid on behalf of the Prime Minister, whereas Article 112 stipulates it is laid on behalf of the President of India. The primary issue was whether the answer key provided by the UPSC for Question 25 was erroneous and if the petitioner was entitled to relief given that the answer key was published after the final results were declared. The court reasoned that the UPSC's practice of publishing answer keys after final results renders candidates virtually remediless. Applying the limited jurisdiction for judicial review of examinations, the court observed that the error in the answer key was apparent on the face of the Constitution (Articles 112 and 113), and correcting this one question would have enabled the petitioner to meet the cut-off marks. By way of interim relief, respondent no.2 is directed to permit the petitioner to appear in the examination for Indian Forest Service (Main) Examination / Civil Services (Mains) Examination pursuant to Examination Notice No.06/2025-IFoS dated 22.01.2025.
Key Points: - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!) - (!)
Question 1? How to challenge UPSC final answer key after final results for Civil Services Examination, and seek interim relief to appear in Mains/IFoS.
Question 2? What is the correct constitutional position regarding who lays the Annual Financial Statement before Parliament (President vs Prime Minister) in relation to question 25 in the UPSC exam.
Question 3? What are the rights of a candidate to seek relief and participate in examinations when an error in an answer key allegedly affected their eligibility for mains, and the procedure for interim relief?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. procedural history of the challenge against upsc preliminary examination results and the issue of delayed answer keys. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. analysis of constitutional provisions (art 112 & 113) to identify errors in the upsc answer key. (Para 4) |
| 3. arguments regarding cut-off marks and the administrative sincerity of the upsc. (Para 5) |
| 4. judicial determination of prima facie error and granting of interim relief to prevent candidates from being remediless. (Para 6) |
ORAL ORDER
1. Heard learned advocate Ms. Megha Jani for Learned Advocate, Ms. Krisha M. Bhimani for the petitioner, Learned Advocate Mr. Harsheel Shukla for respondents no. 1.1 and 1.2 and learned Advocate Mr. Bhagyoday Mishra for respondent no. 2.
2. By way of this petition, the petitioner has inter alia, raised a grievance as regards the petitioner having been deprived from appearing in the Mains Examination conducted by the UPSC in the Civil Services Examinations, more particularly on account of the UPSC committing an error insofar as assessing the question in General Studies Paper-I in Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2024 conducted by the UPSC.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that the petitioner had applied for selection to the post of Indian Forest Services (IFS) in UPSC 2024 Examination and whereas, the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2024 was conducted on 16.06.2024.
3.1. It appears that the results of the preliminary examination were declared on the 01.07.2024 and whereas the candidates who had qualified were permitted to appear in the Indian Forest Service (Mains) Examination, 2024. It would appear that while the petitioner had applied for copy of O.M.R. sheet under the Right to Information Act, he had been intimated that copies of the same would be provided only after the entire process i.e. after the declaration of the final results. It would appear that the examination for the post in question had been conducted by the UPSC on the 24.11.2024 and whereas on 30.01.2025 the results were declared and after the interviews were conducted, on 19.05.2025 the final result came to be declared by the UPSC.
3.2. It would appear that the UPSC had declared the answer key with regard to General Studies Paper-I and Paper-II i.e. the preliminary examination on 21.05.2025. Parallelly, the petitioner had made an application on the very day and vide a communication dated 05.06.2025, the petitioner had been provided with a copy of O.M.R.sheet of the petitioner. It would appear in this regard that in the question paper with regard to General Studies Paper-I, according to the petitioner, the answer given by the UPSC was erroneous and whereas, a representation had been made by the petitioner and whereas, since the same had not been decided, originally, the petitioner had approached the Hon’ble Apex Court by preferring a Writ Petition No. 801/2025 under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
3.3. It would also appear that vide an order dated 25.08.2025, the Hon’ble Apex Court had permitted the petitioner to withdraw the writ petition so as to approach the High Court to avail remedy under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It would also appear in this regard that the conundrum has arisen on account of the fact that the UPSC declares the final answer key even for the preliminary examination after the final result is over. The issue being that in a case like the present, where the candidate is of the opinion that the answer given by the UPSC may not be correct, it would be too late in the day, after the final result is declared by the UPSC, for the candidate to have challenged the same before appropriate forum.
3.4. It would also appear that the Hon’ble Supreme Court was also seized of petitions raising such questions with regard to conducting of the Civil Services Examination by the UPSC and whereas, learned advocate Ms. Jani would submit that, to the best of her instructions, more particularly as per the reports which ha
