The Delhi High Court has come to the aid of an aspirant who attempted the UPSC Forest Service Examination and questioned the correctness of the suggested answers in the model answer key by observing that there is no such bar to entertain such a challenge where the answer is demonstrably unacceptable.

The High Court was considering a Petition filed by a candidate belonging to the OBC Non-Creamy Layer who attempted the UPSC Forest Service Examination, 2022. He did not clear the examination and approached the Central Administrative Tribunal alleging that the suggested answers to Questions 88 and 96 of the General Studies Paper-I, as contained in the official answer key, were incorrect.

The Bench of Justice C. Hari Shankar and Justice Om Prakash Shukla held, “This Court has, in its judgment in Staff Selection Commission v. Shubham Pal & Ors examined the entire case law on this aspect and held that there is no absolute bar to entertain such a challenge. Of course, where the matter is arguable, or where the suggested answer in the answer key is even a plausible answer, the Court would not interfere. Where, however, the answer is demonstrably unacceptable, the Court would definitely interfere ex debito justitiae”

Senior Advocate Anindita Pujari represented the Petitioner while the Central Govt. Standing Counsel Raktim Gogoi represented the Respondent.

Arguments

It was the case of the petitioner that while the suggested answer key suggested option (d) for question 88, the correct option was option (c) and while the suggested answer key suggested option (d) for question 96, the correct answer, according to the petitioner was option (b).

Reasoning

The Bench, at the outset, stated, “It is settled law that there is no absolute bar on a Court examining such a contention and that, if the suggested answers as per the suggested answer keys are patently incorrect, the Court can interfere.”

Considering that the Tribunal had merely dismissed the petition following its own earlier decision and the decisions of the Supreme Court, which hold that there is no absolute right to re-evaluation of examination papers, the Bench refused to express any opinion on the correctness of the suggested answers.

The Bench held that the Tribunal had erred in its approach as the petitioner was not seeking re-evaluation of examination papers and was questioning the correctness of the suggested answers in the model answer key released by the authorities conducting the examination.

Thus, setting aside the impugned order, the Bench remitted the matter to the Tribunal for consideration afresh. “As this involves the candidature of a candidate for entry into the Indian Forest Service and the issue is short, we request the Tribunal to take up this matter on the next date of hearing finally and to take a view thereon as expeditiously as possible”, it concluded.

Cause Title: Bisen Anshul Kumar v. Union of India and Anr (Neutral Citation: 2026:DHC:5160-DB)

Appearance

Petitioner: Senior Advocate Anindita Pujari, Advocates Shaileshwar Yadav, Radhika Mohapatra

Respondent: Central Govt. Standing Counsel Raktim Gogoi, Govt. Pleader Sanjay Pal, Akshita Nigam, Kanhaiya Singla, Ravinder Agarwal, Manish Kumar Singh, Vasu Agarwal

Click here to read/download Order


Delhi High CourtJustice C Hari ShankarJustice Om Prakash Shukla

Tulip Kanth

Assistant Editor

Tulip Kanth is an Assistant Editor at Verdictum having over 5 years of experience in the field of legal journalism and editing. She extensively covers judgments of the Supreme Court, High Courts as well as Tribunals. She has previously worked with a legal publishing website where she oversaw the work of other editors and has also created updates on notifications of different Government Ministries. She holds an English Honours Degree from SGTB Khalsa College, Delhi University and has completed her LLB course with specialisation in Corporate Law from Amity University.