Finding By Court That Question Is Out of Syllabus Can Hardly Be Returned Except In Most Exceptional Cases: Delhi High Court Dismisses UPSC Aspirant’s Petition

The petitioner, Pranav Pandey, approached the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution, challenging the judgment of the Central Administrative Tribunal dismissing his original application.

The Division Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Ajay Digpaul said, “In fact we are of the opinion that a finding by the Court that a question is out of syllabus, can hardly be returned, save and except in the most exceptional cases. The question must be glaringly out of syllabus. So long as it is broadly within the syllabus prescribed, even if it is a question which is unusually difficult or one which no one except a student of extraordinary ability would be able to attempt, that cannot be a factor for the Court to declare the inclusion of the question as illegal, or meriting judicial interference.”

Advocate Sandeep S. Tiwari represented the Petitioner while Advocate Ravinder Agarwal represented the Respondent.

Factual Background

The Civil Services Examination is conducted by the Union Public Service Commission for entrance into various civil services under the Government of India. The Civil Services Aptitude Test is qualifying in nature, and to qualify for further consideration for selection, a candidate is required to score at least 33% marks in the CSAT. The petitioner was an aspirant for the Civil Services and, therefore, underwent the CSE 2023. He was not successful in getting selected for recruitment to the Civil Services. He, thereupon, instituted the Original Application challenging the question papers for both Paper I and Paper II (CSAT).

The Petitioner sought a direction to the UPSC to conduct a re-examination or allow a compensatory attempt to all candidates, and also to have the questions in Paper I and Paper II, examined by an expert. By the impugned judgment, the Tribunal dismissed the application by relying upon its decision in Siddharth Mishra v UPSC (2023).

Reasoning

The Bench explained that challenges to question papers or to model answer keys fall into two categories. One category is of those cases in which the suggested answer is challenged as being incorrect. The second category of cases is those in which it is argued that the questions are out of the syllabus. In the present case, this challenge had also been raised by the petitioner, but concerning Paper II.

Coming to the first category of cases in which it is argued that there is more than one correct answer to a question, the Bench said, “Even in such cases, the Court must be satisfied beyond any doubt, that the question and the suggested answers are unacceptable, as the suggested answer as either incorrect, or it is not the only correct answer. If a clear case in that regard is made out, the Court has to grant relief, and cannot then hide behind the cloak of circumspection. Where there is some degree of ambiguity, or whether it is not possible to say with certainty that the suggested correct answer is not the actual correct answer, the Court would not substitute its subjective view for the view of the examiners or the persons who had set question paper. In that event, the Court must defer to their wisdom as the wisdom of experts.”

With respect to the objection raised with respect to Paper-1, the Bench observed that it is equally open to the paper setter, instead, to require the candidate to identify the number of correct options among the options provided, as in the present case. “The mere fact that, in the latter case, all candidates who answer by stating that only one of the suggested options is correct, would be equal marked, irrespective of whether they knew which the correct option was, is no ground for the Court to strike down the question”, it said while also adding, “We, therefore, find no substance in the challenge raised by the petitioner in so far as Paper I is concerned. A Court cannot even suggest, much less interfere with, the manner in which questions are framed in a question paper, so long as there is no ambiguity in the question or the answers provided.”

With respect to Paper-II, the Petitioner contended that Question numbers 19 and 26 were out of the syllabus. On a perusal of the questions under challenge vis-à-vis the syllabus prescribed, the Bench held that the questions were not out of the syllabus. As per the Bench, the mere fact that some questions may also figure in textbooks for higher classes or at higher-level study textbooks, or be asked in other competitive examinations, does not indicate that the questions are out of the syllabus.

“It is a well known fact that the CSE involves lakhs of students. In the CSE 2023, it is averred that over six lakhs students appeared. When setting a paper for over six lakhs students, it cannot be presumed that all students would be of the same standard or would have a common syllabus. Besides, the level of difficulty of the paper may also be higher, in view of the number of candidates attempting it. Some degree of play in the joints has, therefore, to be granted to the authorities who set the paper”, it observed.

Thus, finding no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment, the Bench dismissed the Petition.

Cause Title: Pranav Pandey v. Union Public Service Commission (Neutral Citation: 2025:DHC:5189-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Advocates Sandeep S. Tiwari, Nikhil Joshi

Respondent: Advocates Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh

Click here to read/download Order