ORDER

This Writ Petition has been filed challenging the Final Key Answer dated 26.09.2023 published by the first respondent for the selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police – 2023 (Taluk, Armed Reserve & Tamil Nadu Special Police (Men, Women & Transgenders) in respect of Question No.24 and Question No.64 in “B” Series. 2. Heard the learned counsel appearing on either side and perused the materials available on record.

3. The petitioner had participated in the process of selection to the post of Grade-II Police Constable conducted by the first respondent. Thereafter, he was appointed to the service as Police Constable on 01.02.2011. While being so, the first respondent had issued a Notification dated 05.05.2023 calling for applications for selection to the post of Sub-Inspector of Police-2023. Out of the total vacancies, 20% was ear marked for the departmental candidates. The petitioner had applied for the said post and appeared for written examination. He has secured 70.5 marks and he was made eligible to participate in the physical endurance test for which 67.5 marks was fixed as cut off. However, he was denied permission to attend the interview.

4. The learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that the petitioner was denied marks for the Question Nos.24 and 64 on the ground of choosing wrong answers. As far as the Question No.24 is concerned, he has chosen to answer based on the text books applicable for the 6th and 10th Standards. Insofar as the Question No.64 is concerned, the question itself is ambiguous and incapable to choose any answer out of four options. If the respondents prepared proper question paper, the petitioner would have obtained 71 marks, if he scored 71 marks he would be selected for interview.

5. The learned Additional Advocate General submitted that the petitioner was qualified for physical endurance test. In the said test, he secured 70 marks and as such, he was not qualified for interview. The interview is conducted on the basis of 1:2. After interview, the entire process is over and the selection list is yet to be published. Similar writ petitions were filed before this Court in W.P.Nos.29973 of 2023 and this Court, by a Common Order dated 30.11.2023, held as follows :-

“4. The core issue involved in these Writ Petitions is as to whether this Court, exercising its power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, would be justified in analyzing the academic materials placed before this Court for the purpose of re-evaluating the final key answers?

5. Such an exercise by this Court is neither feasible nor permissible, in view of the various decisions rendered by the Hon'bleSupreme Court, as well as the High Courts. In the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh and another reported in 2018 (7) SCC 254, this issue was predominantly dealt with in thefollowing manner:

“9. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us.

10. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others [(1983) 4 SCC 309], this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:-

“16………..We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would reg