U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANR versus RAHUL SINGH & ANR.
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 28, Supreme Court of India, 2018
Outcome: Disposed off
Segment: Facts
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
28
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN & ANR.
v.
RAHUL SINGH & ANR.
(Civil Appeal No. 5838 of 2018)
JUNE 14, 2018
[UDAY UMESH LALIT AND DEEPAK GUPTA, JJ.]
Education/Educational Institutions – Matters of academic
nature – Interference by the court – Extent and power of – Upper
Subordinate Services preliminary examination – Key answers
challenged by the candidates as incorrect – High Court overruled
the view of the Commission which was based on the report of expert
Committee – On appeal, held: Judges are not experts and cannot
take on the role of experts in academic matters – They must exercise
great restraint in such matters and should not overstep their
jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts – Courts should be
reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key
answers – When the candidate demonstrates that the key answers
are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts can enter into the
academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by
both sides and hold as to which of the answer is better or more
correct – On facts, all the three questions needed a long process of
reasoning and High Court itself noticed that the stand of the
Commission is also supported by certain text books – High Court
over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions amounting to
setting aside the decision of experts in the field – Answer given by
the Commission is correct – Order passed by the High
Court is set
aside.
Allowing the appeal filed by UP Public Service Commission
and dismissing the appeals filed by the candidates, the Court
HELD: 1.1 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. [Para 12][34-C-D]
[2018] 5 S.C.R. 28
28
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
29
1.2 In the instant case, 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 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
answer is better or more correct. All the 3 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
text books. 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. [Para 14][34-H; 35-A]
1.3 The High Court over stepped 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-R is
concerned, after going through the question on which he raised
an objection, the prima facie view is that that the answer given
by the Commission is correct. [Para 15][35-B-C]
Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others
v. Samir Gupta and Others [1984] 1 SCR 73 : (1983) 4
SCC 309; Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar
Pradesh and Others (2018) 2 SCC 357 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[1984] 1 SCR 73
referred to
 Para 10
(2018) 2 SCC 357
referred to
 Para 11
U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. RAHUL SINGH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
30
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal No. 5838
of 2018.
From the Judgment and Order dated 30.03.2018 of the High Court
of Judicature at Allahabad in Writ-A No. 4734 of 2018.
WITH
C. A. Nos. 5839, 5840-5842 of 2018.
Maninder Singh, ASG, Ankit Yadav, Shrish Kumar Misra, Badri
Prasad Singh, Satendra Tripathi, Narendra M. Sharma, Ms. Anandita
S., Ankur Sood, J. N. Patel, Ms. Romila Mandal, K. Ruza Faridi, Sanjay
Rastogi, Shahbaaz Jameel, Gopal Jha, Bankey Bihari Sharma, Advs. for
the appearing parties.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
DEEPAK GUPTA, J. 1. Applications for impleadment are
allowed.
2. Leave granted.
3. These appeals are being disposed of by a common judgment
since they arise out of one judgment delivered by the High Court of
Allahabad on 30.03.2018.
4. Briefly stated, the facts necessary for the decision of this case
are that the appellant U.P. Public Service Commission (for short ‘the
Commission’) issued an advertisement on 22.02.2017 inviting applications
for filling up vacancies in the Upper Subordinate Services of the State.
The selection is conducted through a three stage test consisting of
preliminary written examination, main examination and interview.  Those
candidates who clear the preliminary examination are entitled to appear
in the main examination.
5. The preliminary examination consisted of two papers namely
General Studies-I and General Studies-II.  We are in this case concerned
only with the General Studies-I paper which carried 200 marks and
consists of 150 objective type questions with multiple choice answers.
After the preliminary examination was conducted, key answers were
published by the Commission.  Many persons including the petitioners
before the Allahabad High Court contended that some of the key answers
were incorrect or that some of the questions had more than one correct
answer.
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
31
6. It is not disputed before us that the Commission initially
constituted two separate expert committees; one comprising of 15 experts
and the other comprising of 18 experts.  This was done even before the
key answers were displayed on the official website of the Commission.
After these two committees gave their expert opinion the key answers
were uploaded on the official website of the Commission during the
period 18.11.2017 to 23.11.2017.  Objections to the key answers were to
be submitted by 24.11.2017.
7. The Commission received 962 objections. The Commission
constituted a committee consisting of 26 members to consider the
objections raised by the candidates.  This 26 member expert committee
examined all the objections over a period of two days and, thereafter, on
the basis of the recommendations of this committee 5 questions were
deleted and the key answers of 2 questions were changed.  As a
consequence the result was declared on the basis of 145 questions.
Thereafter, various candidates filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High
Court wherein challenge was raised to the correctness of the key answers
in respect of 14 questions.  The High Court examined these questions
and after elaborate discussion and reasoning negatived the prayer of the
petitioners in respect of 11 questions but in respect of one question the
High Court held that the question should be deleted; in respect of another
question it held that there were two correct answers and in
respect of
one more question it disagreed with the view of the Commission and
accepted the submission of the petitioners that the answer given in the
key was incorrect.  This judgment is under challenge in these appeals.
8. In the appeal filed by the Commission it has been urged that the
High Court transgressed its jurisdiction and went beyond the scope of
judicial review available in such cases and it should not have overruled
the view of the Commission which was based on the report of  two
committees of experts.  On the other hand one of the original writ
petitioners in his appeal claims that as far as the question where the
High Court has held more than one answer is correct, the same should
be deleted and in respect of another question it is urged that the High
Court wrongly accepted the answer of the Commission.
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.
U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. RAHUL SINGH
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
32
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
10. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others
vs.   Samir Gupta and Others 1, 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 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.
11. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others  vs.  State of Uttar Pradesh
and Others2, this Court after referring to a catena of judicial
pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms:-
“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 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;
 1  (1983) 4 SCC 309
 2  (2018) 2 SCC 357
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
33
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.”
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:-
“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
U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. RAHUL SINGH
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
34
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 5 S.C.R.
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
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 (supra), 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
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 answer
is better or more correct.
14.    In the present case we find that all the 3 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 text books.  When
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
35
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 over stepped 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.
16. In view of the above discussion we allow the appeal filed by
the U.P. Public Service Commission and set aside the judgment of the
Allahabad High Court.  The appeals filed by Rahul Singh and Jay Bux
Singh and Others are dismissed.  All pending applications stand disposed
of.
Nidhi Jain
          Appeals disposed of.
U.P.P.S.C., THROUGH ITS CHAIRMAN v. RAHUL SINGH
[DEEPAK GUPTA, J.]