Madras High Court
Dr.Akash. S vs The State Of Tamil Nadu on 28 March, 2025
Author: C.V.Karthikeyan
Bench: C.V.Karthikeyan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
RESERVED ON : 25.03.2025
PRONOUNCED ON : 28.03.2025
Coram
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.KARTHIKEYAN
W.P.No.7711 of 2025
And
W.M.P.Nos. 8655 & 8657 of 2025
Dr.Akash. S ... Petitioner
-Vs-
1. The State of Tamil Nadu
represented by the Principal Secretary to Government
Department of Health and Family Welfare
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009.
2. The Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB)
Represented by its Member Secretary
7th Floor, DMS Building
359, Anna Salai, Teynampet,
Chennai -600 006.
3. Tamil Nadu Medical Council
No.959 & 960
Poonamallee High Road,
Purasaiwakkam,
Chennai – 600 084. ... Respondents
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
1 of 55
PRAYER: Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India
seeking Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the
provisional selection list bearing PSL No.01/MRB/2024 dated 20.02.2025 with
respect to the post of Assistant Surgeon (General) issued by the second
respondent Board and to quash the same and to direct the respondents to
constitute an Expert Committee to re-assess the revised answer key with
respect to Question No.5 with question ID-7131342189 (Revised Question No.
39 with Question ID-7131342039) and question No. 20 with question ID –
7131342183 (Revised question No.33 with question ID – 7131342033) and to
direct the second respondent to re-issue the provisional selection list for the
post of Assistant Surgeon (General) and further to direct the respondents to
select the petitioner for appointment to the post of Assistant Surgeon (General)
pursuant to the Notification vide Notification No.01/MRB/2024 dated
15.03.2024 issued by the second respondent.
For Petitioner : Mrs.Y.Kavitha
for P.V.S.Giridhar Associate
For 1st Respondent : Mr. M.Bindran
Additional Government Advocate
For 2nd Respondent : Mr.J.Ravindran
Additional Advocate General
assisted by Mr.L.Murugavelu
For 3rd Respondent : Mr. U.Bharanidharan
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
2 of 55
ORDER
The Writ Petition has been filed in the nature of a Certiorarified
Mandamus seeking records relating to the provisional selection list dated
20.02.205 in PSL No.01/MRB/2024 with respect to the post of Assistant
Surgeon (General) issued by the second respondent and quash the same in so
far as the non selection of the petitioner is concerned and direct the respondents
to constitute an Expert Committee to re-assess the revised answer key for
Question No.5 and Question No.20 and direct the second respondent to re-issue
the provisional selection list for the said post and select the petitioner herein.
2. In the affidavit filed in support of the Writ Petition, it had been
contended that the writ petitioner had applied for the post of Assistant Surgeon
(General) consequent to a notification issued by the second respondent. The
petitioner attended the examination held on 05.01.2025. The tentative answer
keys were revised by the second respondent on 08.01.2025. The petitioner had
obtained 58 marks instead of 61 marks which he expected he would receive.
He challenges the correctness of the key answers given to Question Nos. 5 and
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
3 of 55
20.
3. The learned counsel for the petitioner argued that with respect to
question No.5, the key answer suggested by the respondent was 'a'. On the
other hand, the petitioner claims that the answer given by him, namely, 'b' alone
is correct. With respect to question No.20, the petitioner contends that the key
answer given namely, 'd' is wrong and that the correct answer is 'b'. In this
connection, with respect to question No.5, the petitioner had placed reliance on
the reference material, Davidson's Principles and Practice of Medicine, 24th
edition. With respect to question No.10, the petitioner placed reliance on the
study materials Harrison's Mannual of Medicine 20th Edition at Page No.714
and Ganong's Review of Medical Physiology 26th Edition. The learned counsel
for the petitioner argued that the respondents must therefore form a separate
committee to examine the correctness of the key answers provided by them and
verify whether the key answers as given by the petitioner alone are correct.
4. The petitioner filed an additional affidavit stating that the
petitioner had not independently submitted any representation to the second
respondent raising objections as to the correctness of the key answers.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
4 of 55
5. In this connection, the learned counsel for the petitioner placed
reliance on the Judgment reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 [Kanpur University
and others Vs. Samir Gupta and others] and placed specific reference to
paragraph Nos. 16, 17 and 20 which are as follows:-
“16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of
the University, contended that no challenge should
be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key
answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. 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
rationalisation. 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 regard as correct. The
contention of the University is falsified in this case
by a large number of acknowledged textbooks,
which are commonly read by students in U.P.
Those textbooks leave no room for doubt that the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
5 of 55
answer given by the students is correct and the key
answer is incorrect.
17. Students who have passed their
Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to
appear for the entrance Test for admission to the
medical colleges in U.P. Certain books are
prescribed for the Intermediate Board
Examination and such knowledge of the subjects
as the students have is derived from what is
contained in those textbooks. Those textbooks
support the case of the students fully. If this were a
case of doubt, we would have unquestionably
preferred the key answer. But if the matter is
beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to
penalise the students for not giving an answer
which accords with the key answer, that is to say,
with an answer which is demonstrated to be
wrong.
20. Twenty-seven students in all were
concerned with these proceedings, out of whom 8
were admitted to the BDS course, 3 were admitted
to the MBBS course last year itself in place of the
students who dropped out and 5 have succeeded in
getting admission this year. Omitting 8 of the
respondents who have been already admitted to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
6 of 55
the MBBS course, the remaining 19 shall have to
be given admission as directed by the High Court.
If the key answer was not wrong as it has turned
out to be, they would have succeeded in getting
admission. In view of the findings of the High
Court, the question naturally arose as to how the
marks were to be allotted to the respondents for
the three questions answered by them and which
were wrongly assessed by the University. The
High Court has held that the respondents would
be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the
questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition
they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very
questions, since 1 mark was deducted from their
total for each of the questions wrongly answered
by them. Putting it briefly, such of the respondents
as are found to have attempted the three questions
or any of them would be entitled to an addition of
4 marks per question. If the answer-books are
reassessed in accordance with this formula, the
respondents would be entitled to be admitted to
the MBBS course, about which there is no dispute.
Accordingly, we confirm the directions given by
the High Court in regard to the reassessment of
the particular questions and the admission of the
respondents to the MBBS course.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
7 of 55
6. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed further reliance on the
Judgment reported in 2019 SCC OnLine P&H 3912 [Harvinder Singh Johal
Vs. Registrar General, Hon'ble Punjab and Haryana High Court and
another] and placed specific reference to paragraph Nos. 24, 26 and 30 which
are as follows:-
“24. Thus in view thereof, the contention of
the petitioners in respect of question No. 105 is
hereby repelled.
26. According to the respondents, based on
the report of the experts committee, the correct
answer of this question is option ‘C’ whereas
according to the petitioners, the correct answer of
this question is option ‘A’.
30. We have heard learned counsel for the
parties in this regard and are of the considered
opinion that the contention of the respondents is
not acceptable. We would again refer to the note
appended with the opening sheet of the question
paper in which it is provided that “for filling up
the blanks/answering the questions, choose the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
8 of 55
best option out of the given options” and in our
view the best option of question No. 81 by all
means would be option ‘A’ i.e. “insanity” which
actually was the case of Mc Naughten, who was
suffering from some insane delusion and not from
intoxication. Thus we propose to give benefit of
this question to the petitioners and direct that the
answer to this question should be considered as
option ‘A’ instead of ‘C’.”
7. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed further reliance on the
Judgment reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81 [ Rishal and Others Vs. Rajasthan
Public Service Commission and Others] and placed specific reference to
paragraph No. 19 which is as follows:-
“19. The key answers prepared by the paper-setter
or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared
after due deliberations. To err is human. There are various
factors which may lead to framing of the incorrect key
answers. The publication of key answers is a step to
achieve transparency and to give an opportunity to
candidates to assess the correctness of their answers. An
opportunity to file objections against the key answers
uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairness
and perfection in the process. The objections to the key
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
9 of 55
answers are to be examined by the experts and thereafter
corrective measures, if any, should be taken by the
examining body. In the present case, we have noted that
after considering the objections final key answers were
published by the Commission thereafter several writ
petitions were filed challenging the correctness of the key
answers adopted by the Commission. The High Court
repelled the challenge accepting the views of the experts.
The candidates still unsatisfied, have come up in this Court
by filing these appeals.”
8. The learned counsel for the petitioner placed further reliance on the
Judgment reported in (2020) 10 SCC 448 [Commissioner of Police and
Another Vs. Umesh Kumar] and placed specific reference to paragraph Nos.
17 to 23 which are as follows:-
“17. This judgment has adverted to the course
which the recruitment process followed since the
publication of an advertisement for selection to the 2013
batch of Constables (Executive)-Male in Delhi Police.
The narration of facts demonstrates that a result
notifying a list of provisionally selected candidates was
initially declared on 13-7-2015 but it was soon found
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
10 of 55
that an error had crept in due to the failure to allocate a
bonus mark to every candidate whose height was in
excess of 178 cm. The allotment of bonus marks was
provided in Standing Order No. 212 of 2011, which
necessitated a revision of the results. In the revised
result, which was declared on 17-7-2015, certain
candidates from the original list were ousted while new
candidates came in. Both the respondents were part of
the list of successful candidates. Yet, there can be no
dispute about the factual position that the recruitment
process was yet to be concluded. For one thing, the
process of verification of character and antecedents and
the ascertaining of medical fitness was yet to be carried
out. But apart from this, a set of OAs came to be
instituted by unsuccessful candidates before the
Tribunal highlighting grievances in regard to the
manner in which the answer-key had been prepared.
The authorities agreed before the Tribunal to appoint an
Expert Committee. Following the submission of the
report of the Expert Committee, the results were revised
on 22-2-2016.
18. After a decision was taken by the competent
authority for revising the result, as many as 123
candidates who had been selected earlier were ousted
and 129 new candidates came into the selected list. This
process of revising the results was carried out when the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
11 of 55
recruitment process was yet to be completed for the
candidates selected in the result declared on 17-7-2015.
This process of the revision of the result was then
unsuccessfully challenged in the first batch of OAs
before the Tribunal, and subsequently the writ petitions
under Article 226 before the High Court were also
dismissed [Sandeep Kumar v. Delhi Police, 2016 SCC
OnLine Del 5457] as not pressed. The flip-flops which
took place were undoubtedly because of the failure of
the authorities to notice initially the norm of allotting 1
bonus mark based on height and due to the failure to
prepare a proper answer-key. Such irregularities have
become a bane of the public recruitment process at
various levels resulting in litigation across the country
before the Tribunals, the High Courts and ultimately
this Court as well. Much of the litigation and delay in
carrying out public recruitment would be obviated if
those entrusted with the duty to do so carry it out with a
sense of diligence and responsibility.
19. The real issue, however, is whether the
respondents were entitled to a writ of mandamus. This
would depend on whether they have a vested right of
appointment. Clearly the answer to this must be in the
negative. In Punjab SEB v. Malkiat Singh [Punjab
SEB v. Malkiat Singh, (2005) 9 SCC 22 : 2006 SCC
(L&S) 235] , this Court held that the mere inclusion of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
12 of 55
candidates in a selection list does not confer upon them
a vested right to appointment. The Court held : (SCC p.
26, para 4)
“4. … the High Court [Malkiat Singh v. Punjab SEB,
1999 SCC OnLine P&H 75 : ILR (1999) 2 P&H 329]
committed an error in proceeding on the basis that the
respondent had got a vested right for appointment and
that could not have been taken away by the subsequent
change in the policy. It is settled law that mere inclusion
of name of a candidate in the select list does not confer
on such candidate any vested right to get an order of
appointment. This position is made clear in para 7 of
the Constitution Bench judgment of this Court in
Shankarsan Dash v. Union of India [Shankarsan Dash
v. Union of India, (1991) 3 SCC 47 : 1991 SCC (L&S)
800] which reads : (SCC pp. 50-51)
‘7. It is not correct to say that if a number of
vacancies are notified for appointment and adequate
number of candidates are found fit, the successful
candidates acquire an indefeasible right to be appointed
which cannot be legitimately denied. Ordinarily the
notification merely amounts to an invitation to qualified
candidates to apply for recruitment and on their
selection they do not acquire any right to the post.
Unless the relevant recruitment rules so indicate, the
State is under no legal duty to fill up all or any of the
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
13 of 55
vacancies. However, it does not mean that the State has
the licence of acting in an arbitrary manner. The
decision not to fill up the vacancies has to be taken bona
fide for appropriate reasons. And if the vacancies or any
of them are filled up, the State is bound to respect the
comparative merit of the candidates, as reflected at the
recruitment test, and no discrimination can be
permitted. This correct position has been consistently
followed by this Court, and we do not find any
discordant note in the decisions in State of Haryana v.
Subash Chander Marwaha [State of Haryana v.
Subash Chander Marwaha, (1974) 3 SCC 220 : 1973
SCC (L&S) 488], Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana
[Neelima Shangla v. State of Haryana, (1986) 4 SCC
268 : 1986 SCC (L&S) 759] or Jatinder Kumar v. State
of Punjab [Jatinder Kumar v. State of Punjab, (1985) 1
SCC 122 : 1985 SCC (L&S) 174] .’”
(emphasis in original)
20. In the present case, after the name of the
respondents appeared in the results declared on 17-7-
2015, the process of recruitment was put in abeyance
since the results were challenged before the Tribunal.
The process of revising the results during the course of
the recruitment was necessitated to align it in
accordance with law. An Expert Committee was
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
14 of 55
specifically appointed following the institution of
proceedings before the Tribunal. The report of the
Expert Committee established errors in the answer-key,
and thereafter a conscious decision was taken, after
evaluating the report, to revise the results on 1-2-2016.
In the fresh list which was drawn up, both the
respondents have admittedly failed to fulfil the cut-off
for the OBC category to which they belong. As the
learned ASG submitted before the Court, as many as
228 candidates are ranked above Umesh Kumar on
merit while 265 candidates stand above Satyendra
Singh. The submission of Mr Khurshid that these are the
only two candidates before this Court would not entitle
them to a direction contrary to law since they had no
vested right to appointment.
21. In regard to respondent Umesh Kumar, it is also
brought to our attention that he resigned from the RPF
on 16-8-2015 and his resignation was accepted on 25-8-
2015. Evidently, the respondent tendered his resignation
without any justification when the recruitment process
had not been concluded and even before an offer of
appointment was made to him. In any event, it would
have been open to him to seek re-enlistment in the RPF
at the material time which he chose to not do.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
15 of 55
22. In Rajesh Kumar [Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar,
(2013) 4 SCC 690 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 359] , T.S.
Thakur, J., as the learned Chief Justice of India then
was, dealt with a case where the model answer-key, and
hence the process of evaluation of answer scripts by the
Bihar Staff Selection Commission, had been found to be
flawed. The Court held : (SCC p. 696, para 15)
“15. … The writ petitioners, it is evident, on a plain
reading of the writ petition questioned not only the
process of evaluation of the answer scripts by the
Commission but specifically averred that the “model
answer-key” which formed the basis for such evaluation
was erroneous. One of the questions that, therefore, fell
for consideration by the High Court directly was
whether the “model answer-key” was correct. The High
Court had aptly referred [Ajay Kumar v. State of Bihar,
2008 SCC OnLine Pat 918 : (2008) 2 PLJR 310] that
question to experts in the field who, as already noticed
above, found the “model answer-key” to be erroneous
in regard to as many as 45 questions out of a total of
100 questions contained in “A” series question paper.
Other errors were also found to which we have referred
earlier. If the key which was used for evaluating the
answer sheets was itself defective the result prepared on
the basis of the same could be no different. The Division
Bench of the High Court was, therefore, perfectly
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
16 of 55
justified in holding that the result of the examination
insofar as the same pertained to “A” series question
paper was vitiated. This was bound to affect the result of
the entire examination qua every candidate whether or
not he was a party to the proceedings. It also goes
without saying that if the result was vitiated by the
application of a wrong key, any appointment made on
the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable.
The High Court was, in that view, entitled to mould the
relief prayed for in the writ petition and issue directions
considered necessary not only to maintain the purity of
the selection process but also to ensure that no
candidate earned an undeserved advantage over others
by application of an erroneous key.”
In Rajesh Kumar [Rajesh Kumar v. State of
Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690 : (2013) 2 SCC (L&S) 359] ,
the Court then refused to oust those individuals from
service who did not make the grade after revaluation of
the result since they had been in service for nearly seven
years. However, in the present case, as we have
discussed above, the revised result was declared even
before offers of appointment were made to the
respondents since the entire process of recruitment had
been put in abeyance.
23. For the above reasons, we are of the view
that the judgments delivered by the Delhi High Court on
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
17 of 55
6-12-2018 in Umesh Kumarv. State [Umesh Kumar v.
State, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13351] and on 19-12-
2018 in Satyendra Singh v. State [Satyendra Singh v.
State, 2018 SCC OnLine Del 13353] do not comport
with law. The High Court has been manifestly in error
in issuing a mandamus to the appellants to appoint the
respondents on the post of Constable (Executive) in
Delhi Police. The direction was clearly contrary to law.
The respondents have participated in the selection
process and upon the declaration of the revised result, it
has emerged before the Court that they have failed to
obtain marks above the cut-off for the OBC category to
which they belong. ”
9. The learned Additional Advocate General pointed out that the
respondents had disclosed the key answers as given by the expert and the
source material from which the key answers had been determined by the
experts. The learned Additional Advocate General stated that the Court cannot
substitute itself for an expert to determine whether the key answer as given by
the respondents are correct or whether the key answer as given by the petitioner
alone is correct.
10. In this connection, the learned Additional Advocate General placed
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
18 of 55
reliance on the Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (2018) 7
SCC 254 [ Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission and another Vs. Rahul
Singh and Another] and placed specific reference to paragraph Nos. 8 to 15,
which are as follows:-
“8. 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.
9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta
[Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (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 three of the key
answers were wrong. The 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
19 of 55
wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong
by an inferential process of reasoning or by a
process of rationalisation. 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 regard as correct.”
The Court gave further directions but we are
concerned mainly with one that the State
Government should devise a system for
moderating the key answers furnished by the paper
setters.
10. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P.
[Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC
357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297] , this Court after
referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements
summarised the legal position in the following
terms: (SCC pp. 368-69, para 30)
“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, 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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
20 of 55
authority conducting the examination may permit
it;
30.2. 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;
30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate
or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate—it
has no expertise in the matter and academic
matters are best left to academics;
30.4. The court should presume the
correctness of the key answers and proceed on that
assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit
should go to the examination authority rather than
to the candidate.”
11. We may also refer to the following
observations in paras 31 and 32 which show why
the constitutional courts must exercise restraint in
such matters: (Ran Vijay Singh case [Ran Vijay
Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018)
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
21 of 55
1 SCC (L&S) 297] , SCC p. 369)
“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
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
22 of 55
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 interference where there is no
finality to the result of the examinations even after
a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination
authorities even the candidates are left wondering
about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the
examination—whether they have passed or not;
whether their result will be approved or
disapproved by the court; whether they will get
admission in a college or university or not; and
whether they will get recruited or not. This
unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody's advantage and such a state of
uncertainty results in confusion being worse
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
23 of 55
confounded. The overall and larger impact of all
this is that public interest suffers.”
12. The law is well settled that the onus is on
the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key
answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring
mistake which is totally apparent and no
inferential process or reasoning is required to
show that the key answer is wrong. The
constitutional courts must exercise great restraint
in such matters and should be reluctant to
entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the
key answers. In Kanpur University case [Kanpur
University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309] ,
the Court recommended a system of:
(1) moderation;
(2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions;
(3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude
suspected questions and no marks be assigned to
such questions.
13. As far as the present case is concerned,
even before publishing the first list of key answers
the Commission had got the key answers
moderated by two Expert Committees. Thereafter,
objections were invited and a 26-member
Committee was constituted to verify the objections
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
24 of 55
and after this exercise the Committee
recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2
questions, key answers be changed. It can be
presumed that these Committees consisted of
experts in various subjects for which the
examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the
role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the
candidate demonstrates that the key answers are
patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot
enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and
cons of the arguments given by both sides and then
come to the conclusion as to which of the answers
is better or more correct.
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.
15. In view of the above discussion, we are
clearly of the view that the High Court
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
25 of 55
overstepped its jurisdiction by giving the
directions which amounted to setting aside the
decision of experts in the field. As far as the
objection of the appellant Rahul Singh is
concerned, after going through the question on
which he raised an objection, we ourselves are of
the prima facie view that the answer given by the
Commission is correct. ”
11. I have carefully considered the arguments advanced.
12. The scope of this court to convert itself as an expert over and above
an Expert Committee had been examined by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
13. In (2010) 8 SCC 372, Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr.H.L.Ramesh and
Others, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had examined the interference by the High
Court with the answers as projected by the Expert Committee. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court had used the word “impermissiblity” of such interference. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court further stated that the court should show deference to
the recommendations of the Expert Committee, particularly when no mala fide
had been alleged against the experts constituting the selection committee.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
26 of 55
14. The opinion of the experts had been disclosed by the respondents.
The petitioner only claims that the answers as projected by him alone are
correct and the answers as projected by the Expert Committee are not correct.
The petitioner relies on various reference materials to state that the answers
given by him are correct.
15. The learned Counsel had only advanced arguments projecting the
reference materials as instructed by the petitioner which according to the
petitioner were the correct reference materials and contended that on that basis
alone the answers should have been examined.
16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court, in Basavaiah (Dr.) case referred to
supra, had examined the appointment of Readers in Sericulture in the year
1999 on the basis of the qualifications possessed by the appellants therein. The
Hon'ble Supreme Court thereafter examined the notification under which the
selection process was conducted. As in this case, an Expert Committee had
been constituted by the University. Thereafter, it had been stated that the
Committee had scrutinised the qualification, experience and the works
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
27 of 55
published by the candidates and had made recommendations in favour of their
appointments. The Supreme Court finally stated as follows:
“21. It is the settled legal position that the courts
have to show deference and consideration to the
recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of
distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case,
experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and
published work of the appellants and thereafter
recommendations for their appointments were made. The
Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as
an appellate court on the recommendations made by the
country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture.”
17. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had also examined an earlier case
wherein judgment was rendered by a Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court,
reported in AIR 1965 SC 491, The University of Mysore v. C.D.Govinda Rao.
Even the Constitution Bench unanimously held that normally the courts should
be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the Experts, particularly
when there is no allegation of mala fides against the Experts who had
constituted the Selection Board. Paragraph 22 of the Judgment is extracted
hereunder:
“22. A similar controversy arose about 45 years ago
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
28 of 55
regarding appointment of Anniah Gowda to the post of
Research Reader in English in the Central College,
Bangalore, in the case of The University of Mysore and
Another v. C.D.Govinda Rao and Another, AIR 1965 SC
491, in which the Constitution Bench unanimously held that
normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the
opinions expressed by the experts particularly in a case
when there is no allegation of mala fides against the
experts who had constituted the Selection Board. The court
further observed that it would normally be wise and safe for
the courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to the
experts who are more familiar with the problems they face
than the courts generally can be.”
18. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further placed reference to the another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1979) 2 SCC 339,
M.C.Gupta (Dr.) v. Dr.Arun Kumar Gupta and had extracted paragraph No.7
of the said judgment which is extracted hereunder:
“7. ....When selection is made by the Commission
aided and advised by experts having technical experience
and high academic qualifications in the specialist field,
probing teaching research experience in technical subjects,
the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion
expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
29 of 55
fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe
for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to
experts who are more familiar with the problems they face
than the Courts generally can be..."
19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further relied on the judgment
reported in (1980) 3 SCC 418, J.P.Kulshrestha (Dr.) v. Allahabad University,
wherein again it had been observed that the Court should not substitute its
judgment for that of the academicians. Paragraph 17 of the said judgment is as
follows:
“17. Rulings of this Court were cited before us to
hammer home the point that the court should not substitute
its judgment for that of academicians when the dispute
relates to educational affairs. While there is no absolute
ban, it is a rule of prudence that courts should hesitate to
dislodge decisions of academic bodies."
20. A further reference has been made to the judgment of the Hon'ble
Supreme Court reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27, Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar
Sheth where again it had been observed that the Court should be extremely
reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in
relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
30 of 55
men possessing technical expertise and rich experience. The relevant paragraph
No.29 is as follows:
“29. ... As has been repeatedly pointed out by this
Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute
its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in
relation to academic matters in preference to those
formulated by professional men possessing technical
expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working
of educational institutions and the departments controlling
them."
21. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further placed reliance on another
judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court reported in (1990) 2 SCC 746,
Neelima Misra v. Harinder Kaur Paintal, where again the same dictum had
been laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
22. Further in (1992) 2 SCC 220, Bhushan Uttam Khare v. B.J.Medical
College, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had placed reliance on the dictum laid
down by the Constitution Bench judgment in University of Mysore case
referred supra.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
31 of 55
23. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had further placed reliance on further
precedents judgments in paragraph Nos.30 to 37 which are as follows:
“30. In (1990) 1 SCC 305, Dalpat Abashab Solunke
& Others v. Dr. B.S.Mahajan & Others, the court in
somewhat similar matter observed thus:
"12. ...It is needless to emphasise
that it is not the function of the court to
hear appeals over the decisions of the
Selection Committees and to scrutinize the
relative merits of the candidates. Whether
a candidate is fit for a particular post or
not has to be decided by the duly
constituted Selection Committee which
has the expertise on the subject. The court
has no such expertise. The decision of the
Selection Committee can be interfered
with only on limited grounds, such as
illegality or patent material irregularity in
the constitution of the Committee or its
procedure vitiating the selection, or
proved mala fides affecting the selection
etc. It is not disputed that in the present
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
32 of 55
case the University had constituted the
Committee in due compliance with the
relevant statutes. The Committee
consisted of experts and it selected the
candidates after going through all the
relevant material before it. In sitting in
appeal over the selection so made and in
setting it aside on the ground of the so
called comparative merits of the
candidates as assessed by the court, the
High Court went wrong and exceeded its
jurisdiction."
31. In (1994) 1 SCC 169, Chancellor & Another
etc. v. Dr. Bijayananda Kar & Others, the court observed
thus:
"9. This Court has repeatedly held
that the decisions of the academic
authorities should not ordinarily be
interfered with by the courts. Whether a
candidate fulfils the requisite
qualifications or not is a matter which
should be entirely left to be decided by the
academic bodies and the concerned
selection committees which invariably
consist of experts on the subjects relevant
to the selection."
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
33 of 55
32. In (2000) 3 SCC 59, J & K State Board of
Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik & Others, the court
while stressing on the importance of the functions of the
expert body observed that the expert body consisted of
persons coming from different walks of life who were
engaged in or interested in the field of education and had
wide experience and were entrusted with the duty of
maintaining higher standards of education. The decision
of such an expert body should be given due weightage by
courts.
33. In (2001) 5 SCC 486, Dental Council of India
v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust, the court reminded
the High Courts that the court's jurisdiction to interfere
with the discretion exercised by the expert body is
extremely limited.
34. In (2001) 8 SCC 427, Medical Council of India
v. Sarang, the court again reiterated the legal principle
that the court should not normally interfere or interpret
the rules and should instead leave the matter to the
experts in the field.
35. In (2008) 14 SCC 306, B.C.Mylarappa v.
Dr.R.Venkatasubbaiah, the court again reiterated legal
principles and observed regarding importance of the
recommendations made by the Expert Committees.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
34 of 55
36. In (2008) 9 SCC 284, Rajbir Singh Dalal (Dr.)
v. Chaudhari Devi Lal University, the court reminded
that it is not appropriate for the Supreme Court to sit in
appeal over the opinion of the experts.
37. In (2009) 11 SCC 726, All India Council for
Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan, again
the legal position has been reiterated that it is a rule of
prudence that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions
of academic bodies.”
24. Finally in paragraph No.38, the legal position had been reiterated,
The said paragraph is as follows:
“35. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to
reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the
academic matters, the courts have a very limited role
particularly when no mala fide has been alleged against
the experts constituting the selection committee. It would
normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to
leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a
matter of principle, the courts should never make an
endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the
experts. The courts must realize and appreciate its
constraints and limitations in academic matters.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
35 of 55
25. In paragraph No.39, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had frowned upon
the High Court to have ignored the consistent legal position. Paragraph No.39
is as follows:
“39. In the impugned judgment, the High Court has
ignored the consistent legal position. They were expected
to abide by the discipline of the precedents of the courts.
Consequently, we are constrained to set aside the
impugned judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court and restore the judgment of the Single Judge of the
High Court.”
26. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that the High Courts have to
abide by the discipline of the principles of the Courts. The precedents of the
Courts very clearly and categorically stated that the High Court cannot
substitute itself for an expert and when there is no mala fide alleged against the
Committee constituted by Experts, their opinion must be upheld and no other
opinion should be examined or stated by the court.
27. This position of law had again been examined by the Hon'ble
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
36 of 55
Supreme Court in (2018) 2 SCC 357, Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of
Uttar Pradesh and Others. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had examined the
scope of judicial review in re-evaluation and examination of the correctness of
the key answers. The principles required to be followed have been reiterated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court. Even in that particular case, an issue was raised
about the correctness of the key answers as given by the Expert Committee.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:
18. A complete hands-off or no-interference
approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur
[(2010) 6 SCC 759] nor has it been suggested in any
other decision of this Court – the case law developed
over the years admits of interference in the results of an
examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to
a very limited extent.
19. In (1983) 4 SCC 309, Kanpur University v.
Samir Gupta, this Court took the view that
“16. …. 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 rationalisation. It must be
clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
37 of 55
say, it must be such as no reasonable body of
men well-versed in the particular subject
would regard as correct.”
In other words, the onus is on the candidate to clearly
demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect and that too
without any inferential process or reasoning. The burden
on the candidate is therefore rather heavy and the
constitutional courts must be extremely cautious in
entertaining a plea challenging the correctness of a key
answer. To prevent such challenges, this Court
recommended a few steps to be taken by the examination
authorities and among them are: (i) Establishing a
system of moderation; (ii) Avoid any ambiguity in the
questions, including those that might be caused by
translation; and (iii) Prompt decision be taken to exclude
the suspect question and no marks be assigned to it.
20. (1984) 4 SCC 27, Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh
BhupeshKumar Sheth is perhaps the leading case on the
subject and concerned itself with Regulation 104 of the
Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Secondary
Education Boards Regulations, 1977 which reads:
“104. Verification of marks obtained by a
candidate in a subject.—(1) Any candidate
who has appeared at the Higher Secondary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
38 of 55
Certificate examination may apply to the
Divisional Secretary for verification of marks
in any particular subject. The verification will
be restricted to checking whether all the
answers have been examined and that there has
been no mistake in the totalling of marks for
each question in that subject and transferring
marks correctly on the first cover page of the
answer book and whether the supplements
attached to the answer book mentioned by the
candidate are intact. No revaluation of the
answer book or supplements shall be done.
(2) Such an application must be made by
the candidate through the head of the junior
college which presented him for the
examination, within two weeks of the
declaration of the examination results and must
be accompanied by a fee of Rs 10 for each
subject.
(3) No candidate shall claim, or be
entitled to revaluation of his answers or
disclosure or inspection of the answer books or
other documents as these are treated by the
Divisional Board as most confidential.”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
39 of 55
21. The question before this Court was: Whether,
under law, a candidate has a right to demand an
inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books
and whether the statutory regulations framed by the
Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher
Secondary Education governing the subject insofar as
they categorically state that there shall be no such right
can be said to be ultra vires, unreasonable and void.
22. This Court noted that the Bombay High Court,
while dealing with a batch of 39 writ petitions, divided
them into two groups: (i) Cases where a right of
inspection of the answer sheets was claimed; (ii) Cases
where a right of inspection and re-evaluation of answer
sheets was claimed. With regard to the first group, the
High Court held the above Regulation 104(3) as
unreasonable and void and directed the concerned Board
to allow inspection of the answer sheets. With regard to
the second group of cases, it was held that the above
Regulation 104(1) was void, illegal and manifestly
unreasonable and therefore directed that the facility of
re- evaluation should be allowed to those examinees who
had applied for it.
23. In appeal against the decision of the High
Court, it was held by this Court that the principles of
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
40 of 55
natural justice are not applicable in such cases. It was
held that:
“12. … The principles of natural justice
cannot be extended beyond reasonable and
rational limits and cannot be carried to such
absurd lengths as to make it necessary that
candidates who have taken a public
examination should be allowed to participate
in the process of evaluation of their
performances or to verify the correctness of the
evaluation made by the examiners by
themselves conducting an inspection of the
answer books and determining whether there
has been a proper and fair valuation of the
answers by the examiners.”
24. On the validity of the Regulations, this Court
held that they were not illegal or unreasonable or ultra
vires the rule making power conferred by statute. It was
then said:
“16. … The Court cannot sit in
judgment over the wisdom of the policy
evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate
regulation-making body. It may be a wise
policy which will fully effectuate the purpose
of the enactment or it may be lacking in
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
41 of 55
effectiveness and hence calling for revision
and improvement. But any drawbacks in the
policy incorporated in a rule or regulation
will not render it ultra vires and the Court
cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its
opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but
is even a foolish one, and that it will not really
serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The
Legislature and its delegate are the sole
repositories of the power to decide what
policy should be pursued in relation to matters
covered by the Act and there is no scope for
interference by the Court unless the particular
provision impugned before it can be said to
suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of
its being wholly beyond the scope of the
regulation-making power or its being
inconsistent with any of the provisions of the
parent enactment or in violation of any of the
limitations imposed by the Constitution. None
of these vitiating factors are shown to exist in
the present case…..”.
It was also noted by this Court that:
“22. … the High Court has ignored the
cardinal principle that it is not within the
legitimate domain of the Court to determine
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
42 of 55
whether the purpose of a statute can be served
better by adopting any policy different from
what has been laid down by the Legislature or
its delegate and to strike down as
unreasonable a bye-law (assuming for the
purpose of discussion that the impugned
regulation is a bye-law) merely on the ground
that the policy enunciated therein does not
meet with the approval of the Court in regard
to its efficaciousness for implementation of the
object and purposes of the Act.”
25. Upholding the validity of Regulation 104, this
Court then proceeded on the basis of the plain and
simple language of the Regulation to hold that
“20. … The right of verification
conferred by clause (1) is subject to the
limitation contained in the same clause that no
revaluation of the answer books or
supplements shall be done and the further
restriction imposed by clause (3), prohibiting
disclosure or inspection of the answer books.”
This Court then concluded the discussion by observing:
“29. … As has been repeatedly pointed
out by this Court, the Court should be
extremely reluctant to substitute its own views
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
43 of 55
as to what is wise, prudent and proper in
relation to academic matters in preference to
those formulated by professional men
possessing technical expertise and rich
experience of actual day-to-day working of
educational institutions and the departments
controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for
the Court to make a pedantic and purely
idealistic approach to the problems of this
nature, isolated from the actual realities and
grass root problems involved in the working of
the system and unmindful of the consequences
which would emanate if a purely idealistic
view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be
propounded. It is equally important that the
Court should also, as far as possible, avoid
any decision or interpretation of a statutory
provision, rule or bye-law which would bring
about the result of rendering the system
unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that
this principle has not been adequately kept in
mind by the High Court while deciding the
instant case.”
26. In (2004) 6 SCC 714, Pramod Kumar
Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
44 of 55
Commission, the question under consideration was
whether the High Court was right in directing re-
evaluation of the answer book of a candidate in the
absence of any provision entitling the candidate to ask
for re-evaluation. This Court noted that there was no
provision in the concerned Rules for re-evaluation but
only a provision for scrutiny of the answer book
“wherein the answer-books are seen for
the purpose of checking whether all the
answers given by a candidate have been
examined and whether there has been any
mistake in the totalling of marks of each
question and noting them correctly on the first
cover page of the answer-book.”
This Court reiterated the conclusion in (1984) 4 SCC 27,
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth that
“7. … in the absence of a specific
provision conferring a right upon an
examinee to have his answer-books re-
evaluated, no such direction can be issued.”
27. The principle laid down by this Court in
Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth was affirmed in W.B.
Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das
and it was reiterated that there must be finality attached
to the result of a public examination and in the absence
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
45 of 55
of a statutory provision re-evaluation of answer scripts
cannot be permitted and that it could be done only in
exceptional cases and as a rarity. Reference was also
made to (2004) 6 SCC 714, Pramod Kumar Srivastava v.
Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 13 SCC 383,
Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda
and (2007) 1 SCC 603, Board of Secondary Education
v. D.Suvankar.
28. The facts in (2014) 14 SCC 523, Central Board
of Secondary Education v. Khushboo Shrivastava are
rather interesting. The respondent was a candidate in the
All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination,
2007 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary
Education (for short “the CBSE”). Soon after the results
of the examination were declared, she applied for re-
evaluation of her answer sheets. The CBSE declined her
request since there was no provision for this. She then
filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court and the
learned Single Judge called for her answer sheets and on
a perusal thereof and on comparing her answers with the
model or key answers concluded that she deserved an
additional two marks. The view of the learned Single
Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High
Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
46 of 55
29. In appeal, this Court in (2014) 14 SCC 523,
Khushboo Shrivastava case, set aside the decision of the
High Court and reiterating the view already expressed by
this Court from time to time and allowing the appeal of
the CBSE it was held:
“9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of
this Court in (2004) 6 SCC 714, Pramod
Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service
Commission has clearly held relying on
(1984) 4 SCC 27, Maharashtra State Board of
Secondary Education v. Paritosh
Bhupeshkumar Sheth that in the absence of
any provision for the re-evaluation of answer
books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an
examination has any right to claim or ask for
re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in
(2004) 6 SCC 714, Pramod Kumar Srivastava
v. Bihar Public Service Commission was
followed by another three-Judge Bench of this
Court in (2004) 13 SCC 383, Board of
Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan
Panda in which the direction of the High
Court for re- evaluation of answer books of all
the examinees securing 90% or above marks
was held to be unsustainable in law because
the regulations of the Board of Secondary
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
47 of 55
Education, Orissa, which conducted the
examination, did not make any provision for
re- evaluation of answer books in the rules.
10. In the present case, the bye-laws of
the All India Pre- Medical/Pre-Dental
Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by the
CBSE did not provide for re-examination or
re-evaluation of answer sheets. Hence, the
appellants could not have allowed such re-
examination or re-evaluation on the
representation of Respondent 1 and
accordingly rejected the representation
of Respondent 1 for re-examination/re-
evaluation of her answer sheets......
11. In our considered opinion, neither
the learned Single Judge nor the Division
Bench of the High Court could have
substituted his/its own views for that of the
examiners and awarded two additional marks
to Respondent 1 for the two answers in
exercise of powers of judicial review under
Article 226 of the Constitution as these are
purely academic matters. .....”
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
48 of 55
28. Finally in paragraph Nos.30.3, 30.4 and 30.5, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court held as follows:
“30.3. 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;
30.4. The Court should presume the correctness of
the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and
30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to
the examination authority rather than to the candidate.”
29. An examination of the aforementioned position of law as stated by
the Hon'ble Supreme Court would show that the Court should presume the
correctness of the key answers and proceed on that presumption. It must also be
kept in mind that the Court must understand that it has no expertise in the
academic matters and it would be prudent that such matters are best left to the
academicians. It had been further held that in the event of a doubt, the benefit
should go to the Examination Authority rather than to the candidate. Further in
paragraph No.31, the Hon'ble Supreme Court had held as follows:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
49 of 55
“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.”
30. It is thus seen that the Hon'ble Supreme Court had also reiterated that
sympathy or compassion does not play any role in any matter of directing or
not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. It had been very categorically
stated that despite several decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, there are
interferences by the Courts in the result of examination and such interference
had been declared as unwarranted by the Supreme Court. It had been held as
follows in paragraph 32:
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
50 of 55
“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 interference where there is no finality to the result
of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart
from the examination authorities even the candidates are
left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result
of the examination – whether they have passed or not;
whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the
Court; whether they will get admission in a college or
University or not; and whether they will get recruited or
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
51 of 55
not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to
anybody’s advantage and such a state of uncertainty
results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall
and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers.”
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had stated that such a re-scrutiny of the
examination would put the Examination Authority in unenviable position pf
coming under scrutiny and not the candidates.
32. The position of law is clear. It cannot be interpreted otherwise.
33. The Hon'ble Supreme Court had referred to a catena of judgments
commencing with the Constitution Bench Judgment of the year 1965 and
moving further down and had categorically held that the answers as projected
by the Expert Committee alone should be presumed to be correct.
34. When there are two possible answers, the Hon'ble Supreme Court
had very clearly stated that the answer key as projected by the Expert
Committee alone must be taken to be correct. The Court has to give due
deference to the dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
52 of 55
35. I am not inclined to concur with any of the contentions raised by the
learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner. I am not inclined to examine whether
the answers projected by the petitioner are correct. I am inclined to follow the
dictum laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that the answers projected by
the Expert Committee are correct and must be presumed to be correct and the
court should proceed on such presumption made. To reiterate, the petitioner has
not alleged any mala fide on the part of the Expert Committee. The affidavit
has not been filed on that line. No arguments have been advanced raising such
a ground.
36. The writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Consequently, W.M.P.No.
8655 of 2025 stands allowed and W.M.P.No. 8657 of 2025 stands closed.
28.03.2025
vsg
Index : Yes
Speaking order
Neutral Citation : Yes
Note: Issue order copy today ie., on 28.03.2025
To
1. The Principal Secretary to Government
The State of Tamil Nadu
Department of Health and Family Welfare
https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm )
53 of 55
Secretariat
Chennai – 600 009.
C.V.KARTHIKEYAN, J.
vsg
2. The Member Secretary The Medical Services Recruitment Board (MRB) 7th Floor, DMS Building 359, Anna Salai, Teynampet, Chennai -600 006.
3. Tamil Nadu Medical Council No.959 & 960 Poonamallee High Road, Purasaiwakkam, Chennai – 600 084.
Pre-Delivery Order made in W.P.No.7711 of 2025 And W.M.P.Nos. 8655 & 8657 of 2025 https://www.mhc.tn.gov.in/judis ( Uploaded on: 28/03/2025 04:26:27 pm ) 54 of 55