Court Must Step In To Correct Injustice If The Answer In Impugned Key is Clearly Incorrect: Delhi HC Dismisses Staff Selection Commission's Appeal

The Court said that howsoever circumspect an approach the law may advocate, the approach can never be so circumspect as would allow injustice to occur, unredressed.

The Division Bench of the High Court was hearing a Letters Patent Appeal filed by the Staff Selection Commission assailing the judgment passed by the Single Judge in Writ Petition.

The bench of Justice C Hari Shankar and Justice Sudhir Kumar Jain observed, “If the Court is satisfied that the answer provided in the impugned answer key is obviously incorrect, so that allowing the answer to remain would result in injustice, the Court has necessarily to step in and set aright the situation. Any judge who, perceiving obvious injustice taking place before him, professes inability to interfere, breaches his solemn oath of office. Howsoever circumspect an approach the law may advocate, the approach can never be so circumspect as would allow injustice to occur, unredressed.”

CGSC Pratima N Lakra appeared for the Appellant and Advocate Ankur Chhibber appeared for the Respondent.

Brief Facts-

In the present case, the dispute relates to the Combined Graduate Level Examination Tier-II, 2023 conducted by the SSC for recruitment to various civil posts under the Union. The Respondents assailed the correctness of the answers provided in the final Answer Key released by the SSC in respect of the CGLE. According to the respondents, the Answers provided in the final Answer Key to 7 questions were incorrect and if the suggested answers in the final Answer Key were corrected as sought by the Respondents, it would result in the Respondents obtaining as many as 21 additional marks, which would radically alter their result in the CGLE.

The Court noted that the sphere of judicial review cannot be altogether foreclosed when answers suggested in Answer Keys to examinations were challenged.

The Court observed, “There may be gross cases, or cases in which it is evident without any necessity for ratiocination or intricate reasoning that the answer under challenge is palpably incorrect. In such case, the interests of substantial justice have to prevail, and students who have attempted the examination cannot be allowed to suffer merely because of an obviously incorrect answer suggested by the subject experts.”

The Court further observed, “Questions in examinations, which have serious and often pan- India ramifications on the candidates who undertake them, are required to be crafted both sensitively and sensibly.”

Accordingly, the Court dismissed the Appeal.