The Gauhati High Court has allowed Expert Answer Key Review when an answer key contains a clear and undeniable error. The Court held that candidates cannot suffer because of an ambiguous examination question.
Justice Kaushik Goswami delivered the ruling. He noted that courts usually respect expert opinions in competitive examinations. However, that principle does not prevent judicial intervention in cases of obvious errors.
Court Can Intervene in Clear Cases
The High Court explained that courts should not normally replace experts with their own views. However, judicial review remains possible when an answer key is clearly wrong.
The error must be obvious and supported by authoritative material. No reasonable group of experts should be able to defend the disputed answer.
The Court also warned against declaring an answer wrong through speculation. Candidates need relief only when the error creates no reasonable controversy.
Football Question Creates Dispute
The case involved Partha Sarathi Shill, an applicant for SSC Constable (General Duty) recruitment in the CAPFs.
Shill belonged to the OBC category. He cleared the physical and medical tests.
However, the SSC deducted 2.5 marks because of his answer to Question No. 8.
The question asked:
“What is the maximum length of the touch line in a football match?”
The SSC final answer key marked 110 metres as the correct answer. Shill had selected 120 metres.
Shill relied on the official Laws of the Game issued by the International Football Association Board (IFAB). He argued that the rules allow a general maximum touch-line length of 120 metres.
According to him, the 110-metre limit applies to international matches. The question did not mention an international match.
Ambiguous Question Cannot Penalize Candidate
The State defended the SSC’s final answer key. It argued that the commission had published a tentative key and invited objections.
The SSC then sent the objections to subject experts. The final key followed the experts’ recommendation.
The State therefore argued that courts should not interfere with the expert decision.
Justice Goswami rejected that argument. He relied on the Division Bench ruling in Baranyamoy Sarma.
The Court found that the question lacked an important qualification. It did not specify that the question concerned an international match.
Therefore, Shill could reasonably select 120 metres based on the general football rules.
High Court Grants Relief to Candidate
The Gauhati High Court found that the answer key wrongly deprived Shill of 2.5 marks.
The Court directed the SSC to add the disputed marks to his score. His revised aggregate became 67.82908.
That score placed him above the OBC cut-off for ITBP.
The Court held that the error in the answer key caused his non-selection. It directed the authorities to process his appointment in accordance with law.
Judicial Review Is Not Completely Barred
The ruling confirms that expert opinions receive significant judicial deference. However, that deference has limits.
Courts can intervene when an answer key contains a palpably wrong answer. They can also protect candidates when an ambiguous question leads to unfair consequences.
The judgment therefore strengthens the scope of Expert Answer Key Review while preserving the normal judicial restraint applied to academic and examination experts.
