Back
Rules SSC Answer Key Is Erroneous, Orders 2.5 Marks for Football Question
The has ruled that a candidate cannot be penalised for ambiguity in a question framed by the examining authority, directing the to award 2.5 marks to a petitioner who was denied selection in the Constable (General Duty) recruitment process. Justice Kaushik Goswami held that the answer key published by the Commission for a question on the maximum length of a football touch line was .
One Football Question, A Missed Career
The matter arose from an SSC advertisement dated , inviting applications for 24,369 posts of Constable (General Duty) in various . Partha Sarathi Shill, a candidate from Hojai, Assam, participated in the selection process and cleared all stages, including the medical examination. However, his score fell 2.5 marks short of the OBC category cut-off for — precisely the marks deducted for his answer to Question No. 8.
The disputed question asked:
"What is the maximum length of the touch line in a football match?"
The options were 100m, 110m, 120m, and 90m. The SSC's final answer key treated Option No. 2 (110m) as correct, but the petitioner had chosen Option No. 3 (120m), relying on the Laws of the Game issued by the .
When 110 Metres Isn't the Right Answer
The petitioner, represented by counsel , argued that the IFAB Laws of the Game prescribe two distinct sets of dimensions: a maximum touch line length of 120 metres (130 yards) for football matches generally, and 110 metres (120 yards) for international matches only. Since the question referred simply to "a football match" without specifying an international fixture, the only correct answer was 120 metres, the petitioner contended.
The argument found support from an unexpected quarter. , learned Central Government Counsel, fairly conceded during the hearing that under the general Laws of the Game, the maximum touch line length is indeed 120 metres, and the 110-metre figure applies exclusively to international encounters.
Courts Don't Sit in Appeal Over Experts — Except When They Must
The respondents argued that the tentative answer key was published on , and that all objections were referred to subject experts who recommended the final key. Judicial interference with expert opinion, they submitted, was unwarranted.
The Court acknowledged the that it . However, it drew upon the 's decision in
Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta
(1983) 4 SCC 309, which established that the key answer should be assumed correct
"unless it is proved to be wrong"
and must not be held wrong
"by an
or by a process of
."
The Division Bench judgment in and the coordinate Bench ruling in were also cited, both reiterating that interference is permissible where the prescribed answer is .
"The distinction is explicit and leaves no scope for ambiguity. Had the examining authority intended to test the dimensions applicable exclusively to international football matches, it was incumbent upon it to frame the question accordingly,"
the Court observed.
"The expression employed in the question is 'a football match,' which is general in nature and cannot, by implication, be restricted to international football matches."
Key Observations from the Bench
"The mere fact that 110 metres also appeared as one of the answer options cannot justify treating it as the only correct answer. The ambiguity, if any, arose solely because the question omitted to specify that it related to international football matches. In such circumstances, a candidate answering the question with reference to the general Laws of the Game cannot be penalised."
"The respondents cannot derive any advantage from an error committed by them in prescribing an incorrect answer key."
"The mere fact that the recruitment process has since concluded cannot be permitted to defeat the legitimate claim of the petitioner."
The Verdict: Marks Restored, Selection Ordered
The Court noted that the petitioner scored 65.32908 marks against the cut-off of 67.08295 for the OBC category in . With 2.5 marks awarded, his revised score of 67.82908 would comfortably exceed the prescribed threshold.
The respondents were directed to revise the petitioner's result, treat him as having qualified, and take consequential steps for his appointment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in the or Rifleman (General Duty) in . In the event no vacancy remains from the 2022 recruitment cycle, the respondents were directed to consider accommodating the petitioner, including through the creation of a , if permissible under applicable rules. The entire exercise must be completed within three months.
The judgment reinforces a critical safeguard in examination law: while expert opinion on answer keys is ordinarily entitled to deference, that deference is not absolute — and candidates cannot be made to bear the cost of an examiner's drafting error.
