Students Cannot Suffer For Faults Of University: Allahabad High Court Uphold Judicial Review Of "Erroneous" Answer Key

“When the answers run contrary to the material published in a large number of acknowledged textbooks, which are commonly read by students in the State, it leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect. The key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous, the petitioner cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the Selection Board and it calls for interference by this Court in exercise of the Writ jurisdiction so that the error is rectified and the wrong answers do not adversely affect the fate of the candidates and their merit is tested in a proper manner,” held Justice Subhash Vidyarthi.

However, the Court also held that candidates selected and given appointments based on erroneous answer key cannot be ousted once appointed but shall be placed at the bottom of the list.

Factual Background

A notification was issued by the Secondary Education Selection Service Board, Uttar Pradesh ('the Selection Board') for appointments to various posts of Lecturers, including 97 Posts of Lecturers (English) in boys category and 13 posts of Lecturer (English) in girls category. Petitioner participated in the written examination.

Dispute arose regarding 3 question which were answered by the Selection Board. The answers were objected to by the candidates and were subsequently revised. For certain questions, all candidates were awarded full marks as either more than one option provided was correct or none were correct. Since the change in markings caused prejudice, writ petitions were filed by petitioner and other in 2015. Petitioners therein, were directed to asked to raise grievances before the Selection Board.

After consultation with experts from the University of Allahabad, revised answer key was published where full marks were awarded for 3 new questions and answer of question 117 was revised.

Petitioner argued that answers of certain questions were available in the paper, and awarding full marks for such questions has changed the result causing him prejudice. It was argued that certain answers had been wrongly revised/altered.

High Court Verdict

The Court relied on various judgments of the Supreme Court to observe that the High Court can exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India when candidate has been disentitled to marks by treating his correct answers as wrong answers, but expert opinions must be cautiously interfered with.

The Court observed that as a rule, answer keys must be assumed correct unless it is shown to be incorrect based on the materials published in large number of textbooks commonly read by the students in the State. Where the answer key is “palpably and demonstrably erroneous”, students cannot be made to suffer on account of faults of the University.

Further, it was held that “the decision of the examining body or the expert is not beyond judicial review. The prime consideration is to maintain the fairness of the examination and welfare of the students/candidates, inasmuch as, in the event a wrong answer key is accepted, it would alter the fate of many candidates. The object of conducting an examination is to assess the merit of the candidates and to find out as to who is most suitable one for admission. The object of conducting a test would be defeated in case a wrong answer given is held to be beyond judicial review.”

The Court observed that with regard to the question whether 'The tempest' by Shakespeare is a comedy or tragic comedy, the original answer key stated it to be a tragic comedy whereas in the revised answer key it was marked as comedy. It was observed that the subject expert of the University of Allahabad also marked 'The tempest' as a tragic comedy. Perusing the records, the Court noted various such changes for different questions.

Further, the Court referred to certain text books regarding question 107. It was held that the change in opinion recorded by the person giving the answer key was not based on any material and was mere change of opinion which was contrary to the textbooks read by students across the State.

Holding the students cannot be made to suffer on account of faults of the University, the Court held that though the affected parties were given appointments during the pendency of the writ petition and the fact that they had not appeared before the Court even though notices were served on them, will not disentitle petitioner from the reliefs claimed.

Reliance was placed on Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, where the Supreme Court directed a fresh merit list to be drawn up and candidates who were now included in the merit list be given appointments. It was held that if the appointed candidates do not feature in the fresh merit list, they shall not be ousted but be placed at the bottom of the list, below the freshly appointed candidates.

Accordingly, the Court quashed the impugned answer key and directed re-valuation of answer sheets in accordance with the observations of the Court. It was directed that if the petitioner is successful after revaluation, he shall be given appointment for the date first appointments were made, without backwages.

Case Title: Ajay Kumar Shukla vs. State Of U.P. And Anr. 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 465 [WRIT - A No. - 52949 of 2016]

Case citation: 2024 LiveLaw (AB) 465

Counsel for Petitioner : Shreya Gupta

Counsel for Respondent : A.K.S.Parihar, Ashok Kumar Yadav