JUDGMENT

(Judgment of the Court was delivered by S.M.Subramaniam J.)

The present intra-court appeal has been instituted to assail the writ order dated 10.03.2025 passed in W.P. No. 6491 of 2025. Writ petitioner is the appellant herein.

2. Appellant participated in the process of selection to the post of Assistant Surgeon (General). The controversy arose in the present lis is that Question No. 25 given by the authorities is ambiguous and the key answer is also incorrect.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant, would mainly contend that in the context of Question No. 25, both answers 'A' and 'B' are correct. Therefore, marks ought to have been awarded to the appellant, since she had given the option ‘A’. As per the key answer, the correct answer is ‘B’.

4. Writ Court has elaborately considered the scope and nature of the questions, key answers and the legal position as well as the powers of judicial review of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.

5. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of U.P., and Others, 2017 INSC 1209, the Apex Court held as follows:

“…

30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.

31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse – exclude the suspect or offending question.

32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interfer