ADITYA SHANKAR PRASAD vs FOREST AND ENVIRONMENT on 5 November 2026

ORDER

Per: Hon’ble Shri Jayesh V Bhairavia, Member (J)

1. The grievance of the applicant is that the Respondent No.3, i.e., Union Public Service Commission (in short „UPSC‟) has published the impugned answer-key on 15.05.2026 and declared the result on 18.05.2026 in respect of the Indian Forest Service Examination conducted on 25.05.2025, without correctly evaluating Question Nos. 13 and 79 of Set „C‟ of General Studies (GS) Paper-I. According to the applicant, the answers prescribed by the UPSC to the aforesaid P ANUKUMA

:2: OA No.120/258/2026

questions are erroneous and, consequently, the applicant has been deprived of 5.32 marks, which would materially affect his examination result in GS Paper-I.

2. By filing the present OA under Section 19 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985, the applicant is seeking the following reliefs:- “A. To quash and set aside the impugned answer-key dated 13.05.2026 issued by the Respondent Commission, qua the present Applicant in respect of Question Nos. 13 and 79 of Set 'C' of the Preliminary Examination of the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2025 (conducted on 25.05.2025); and B. Issue an appropriate order/direction directing the Respondent Commission to revise and re-evaluate the answer-script of the Applicant in respect of the Preliminary Examination of the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2025, by treating the correct answers to Question Nos. 13 and 79 to be "(c) All the three" and "(d) II and III only" respectively, and consequently to revise the Applicant's total score in General Studies Paper-I from the existing 103.34 marks to 108.66 marks; and C. Issue an appropriate order/direction declaring that the Applicant, upon such revision, stands duly qualified for the Main Examination of the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2025, and directing the Respondent Commission in consonance with the principle of moulding of relief, to permit the Applicant to directly appear in the Main Examination of the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2026 scheduled to be conducted on the basis of the notification/advertisement dated 04.02.2026 without considering an additional attempt on paIi of the Applicant and without subjecting him to the Preliminary Examination thereof; and D. Pending the hearing and final disposal of the present Original Application, direct Respondent Commission to keep one seat reserved/vacant for the Applicant in the Main Examination of the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2026, and to defer the inalization of the results of the said recruitment process to the extent it would otherwise operate to the prejudice of the Applicant; and E. Be pleased to award the costs of the application. F. Be pleased to grant such other and further relief/s as deemed just and proper by this Hon'ble Court in the interest of justice.”

3.

FACTS OF THE CASE

3.1 The applicant is an aspirant of the Civil Services Examination as well as the Indian Forest Service Examination, both conducted by the UPSC, a P ANUKUMA

:3: OA No.120/258/2026

constitutional authority established under Article 315 of the Constitution of India. 3.2 The applicant graduated in Chemical Engineering from BMS College of Engineering, Bangalore, in the year 2019 and thereafter commenced preparation for various competitive examinations conducted by the Respondent Commission and other Central authorities. He has been appearing in the Civil Services Examination as well as the Indian Forest Service Examination consistently since the year 2020 and successfully cleared the Preliminary stage of both examinations in the year 2024. His academic qualifications and previous participation in the aforesaid examinations are stated to be undisputed. 3.3 The present OA pertains to the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2025. The UPSC issued an Advertisement dated 22.01.2025 (Annexure A-1) inviting applications for the said examination, pursuant to which the applicant submitted his application, which was accepted. The applicant was accordingly issued Admit Card bearing Roll No. 0115359 (Annexure A/2). 3.4 The applicant appeared in the Preliminary Examination held on 25.05.2025. The result thereof was declared by the UPSC vide Press Note dated 11.06.2025. However, the applicant did not find his name in the list of qualified candidates. According to him, at that stage, he had no means to ascertain whether the answers attempted by him had been correctly evaluated or whether his candidature had been rightly or wrongly rejected, inasmuch as the UPSC, under its prevailing policy and rules, reserved discretion to publish individual marks and/or declare results upon expiry of one year from the date of examination. The relevant excerpt of the Press Note dated 11.06.2025 (Annexure A/3) whereas the relevant Rules for Indian Forest Examination dated 14.02.2024 (Annexure A/4). 3.5 The applicant further stated that the aforesaid procedure adopted by the UPSC, whereby answer keys were withheld until conclusion of the recruitment process, came to be challenged before the Hon‟ble Supreme P ANUKUMA

:4: OA No.120/258/2026

Court of India in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 118 of 2024. The said writ petition was disposed of vide Judgment dated 14.10.2025, upon an affidavit filed by the UPSC, wherein the UPSC undertook, inter alia, the following:

(i) to publish a Provisional Answer Key after the conduct of the Preliminary Examination;

(ii) to invite representations/objections from candidates, duly supported by three authoritative sources;

(iii) to place such representations/objections before a team of subject experts for finalization of the answer key; and

(iv) to declare the results on the basis of such finalized answer key.

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further observed that „so far as the individual grievances of the petitioners are concerned, they may approach the High Court by invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, if so advised. If the Writ Petitions are filed, the High Court may consider and dispose them of expeditiously. (Annexure A/5). 3.6 The applicant stated that UPSC subsequently published the individual marks as well as the official cut-off/qualifying marks for the Preliminary Examination. Upon perusal thereof, it transpired that the cut-off had been fixed at 105.34 marks for General Studies Paper-I and at 33% of the total marks for General Studies Paper-II. The applicant secured 103.34 marks in General Studies Paper-I, thereby falling short of the prescribed cut-off by merely 2 marks (Annexure A/7). 3.7 The applicant stated that the answer key pertaining to the question paper attempted by him, i.e., Set „C‟, was released by the UPSC on 13.05.2026. The relevant excerpts of the Question Paper, Set „C‟, along with the corresponding answer key, have been annexed as Annexure A/8 (Colly). 3.8 Upon examining the aforesaid answer key, the applicant claims to have identified errors in the answers prescribed by the UPSC in respect of Question Nos. 13 and 79 of Set „C‟ of General Studies Paper-I. P ANUKUMA

:5: OA No.120/258/2026

According to him, the answers prescribed in respect of the aforesaid questions are incorrect, notwithstanding the fact that he had attempted the correct answers thereto. The applicant has, therefore, challenged the answer key to the extent of the aforesaid two questions. In respect of Question No. 13, the question reads as under: “13. Consider the following space missions: I. Axiom-4

II. SpaDeX

III. Gaganyaan

How many of the space missions given above encourage and support micro-gravity research?

(a) Only one

(b) Only two (c )All the three

(d) None”

As per the official answer key, the correct answer is stated to be “(b) only two”.

However, according to the applicant, the correct answer to the aforesaid question is "(c) All the three". In support of his contention, he relies upon official material published on the website of the Indian Space Research Organisation (ISRO), Department of Space, as well as the Press Information Bureau, Ministry of Information & Broadcasting, Government of India (Annexure A/9). The applicant further asserted that he had, in fact, attempted Option (c), i.e., “All the three”.

Further, it is stated that a similar discrepancy can also be found in respect to Question No. 79, which reads as under: "79. Consider the following statements: I. Without the atmosphere, temperature would be well below freezing point everywhere in the Earth's surface. II. Heat absorbed and trapped by the atmosphere maintains our planet's average temperature. III Atmosphere's gases, like carbon dioxide, are particularly good at absorbing and trapping radiation. P ANUKUMA

:6: OA No.120/258/2026

Which of the statements given above are correct?

(a) I and III only

(b) I and II only

(c) I, II and III

(d) II and III only"

As per the official answer key, the correct answer is stated to be "(c) - I, II and III".

However, according to the applicant, the correct answer would be "(d) II and III only". In support of the said claim, the applicant relied upon the Chapter 4 of the Class VII Geography textbook published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training (NCERT) which, according to him, constitutes a standard reference (Annexure A/10). The applicant further asserted that he had, in fact, attempted Option (d), i.e., “II and III only”. 3.9 According to the applicant, the incorrectness of the answer key in respect of the aforesaid two questions is apparent on the face of the record and does not require any elaborate inferential exercise either by this Tribunal or by an individual of ordinary prudence. He accordingly claims entitlement to an upward revision of his marks by a total of 5.32 marks, computed as under:

(i) 4 marks, being 2 marks for each of the two impugned questions allegedly answered correctly by him; and

(ii) 1.32 marks towards negative marks wrongly deducted, calculated at the rate of 0.66 marks per question.

According to the applicant, upon correction of the aforesaid errors, his revised score would stand at 108.66 marks, calculated as 103.34 + 4 + 1.32, thereby exceeding the prescribed cut-off of 105.34 marks and entitling him to qualify for the Main Examination. 3.10 The applicant further stated that, in the interregnum, he was actively engaged in preparation for the Civil Services Examination, 2026, conducted by the UPSC pursuant to Advertisement dated 04.02.2026, the Preliminary Examination whereof was scheduled to be held on P ANUKUMA

:7: OA No.120/258/2026

24.05.2026. He also stated that he visited a hospital and sought medical treatment on and from 20.05.2026. According to him, the aforesaid illness, coupled with his preparation for and participation in the Preliminary Examination held on 24.05.2026, incapacitated him from immediately seeking appropriate relief either from the UPSC or from this Tribunal. He, therefore, submits that any delay in approaching this Tribunal was neither deliberate nor intentional but occasioned by genuine and bona fide circumstances, and prays that the same may be condoned in the interest of justice. 3.11 The applicant stated that he submitted a representation dated 26.05.2026 to the UPSC seeking rectification of the alleged errors in the answer key, re-evaluation of his answer-script and permission to appear in the Main Examination of the Indian Forest Service Examination, 2026, without being subjected to the Preliminary Examination (Annexure A/11). Hence, this OA.

4. Pursuant to notice issued by this Tribunal, the respondents have filed their reply to which the applicant has also filed his rejoinder.

5. CONTENTIONS OF THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE APPLICANT 5.1 Learned counsel for the applicant, while reiterating the averments made in the OA, submitted that the impugned answer key released by the UPSC suffers from patent and demonstrable errors in respect of Question Nos. 13 and 79 of Set „C‟ of the Preliminary Examination held on 25.05.2025, the incorrectness whereof is apparent on the face of the record and requires no elaborate inferential exercise to establish. 5.2 Learned counsel also submitted that the impugned answer key is in violation of Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel contended that the official answer to Question No.13, marked as “Only two”, stands contradicted by the authoritative publications of the Indian Space Research Organisation and the Press Information Bureau, which unequivocally establish “All the three” as the correct response. Likewise, the official answer to Question No. 79, marked as “I, II and III”, stands contradicted by Chapter 4 of the Class VII Geography P ANUKUMA

:8: OA No.120/258/2026

textbook published by the NCERT, which supports “II and III only” as the correct answer. Learned counsel argued that the persistence of the UPSC with these manifestly erroneous answers, resulting in the rejection of the applicant‟s candidature notwithstanding his having furnished the correct responses, is wholly arbitrary, irrational and discriminatory. 5.3 Learned counsel further submitted that it is settled law that an answer- key error which is demonstrably wrong on the face of the record warrants intervention of this Tribunal, notwithstanding the general rule of deference to expert opinion. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that key-answers which are demonstrably wrong cannot be sustained and that candidates cannot be penalized for furnishing the correct answers. Learned counsel contended that the present case squarely satisfies the said exacting standard, the errors being established by reference to unimpeachable governmental and educational sources of unquestioned authority. 5.4 Learned counsel also drew our attention to the judgment dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No.118 of 2024 and submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has recognized the entitlement of aggrieved candidates to seek redressal of their individual grievances before the appropriate forum. Learned counsel further submitted that the Hon‟ble Supreme Court endorsed the principle that where an answer in the final answer key is found to be incorrect, the relief ought to be moulded so as not to disturb the larger recruitment process, by permitting the successful petitioner/applicant to directly appear in the Main Examination of the ensuing year. Learned counsel contended that the present case attracts the aforesaid principle in its entirety and provides a judicially approved basis for moulding the relief in favour of the applicant. 5.5 Learned counsel further submitted that the applicant has been gravely prejudiced by the UPSC‟s continued failure to implement the transparency norms as set out by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. Learned P ANUKUMA

:9: OA No.120/258/2026

counsel contended that the answer key in the applicant‟s case was published only on 13.05.2026, well after the aforesaid judgment dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, thereby denying the applicant any meaningful opportunity to raise contemporaneous objections supported by authoritative sources. Learned counsel submitted that the applicant‟s exclusion from the Main Examination is attributable solely to the aforesaid erroneous evaluation and that his rectified score of 108.66 marks would demonstrably exceed the prescribed cut-off of 105.34 marks. Therefore, learned counsel argued that the applicant would suffer grave, irreparable and irremediable injury if the impugned action were permitted to stand. 5.6 Lastly, learned counsel prayed that the instant OA be allowed and the reliefs sought be granted in favour of the applicant.

6. CONTENTIONS OF LEARNED COUNSEL FOR RESPONDENTS 6.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents, while opposing the claims of the applicant, drew our attention to the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the UPSC and submitted that the UPSC conducts the Indian Forest Service (IFoS) Examination strictly in accordance with the Examination Rules framed and notified by the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. Learned counsel also submitted that the IFoS Examination comprises two stages, namely, (i) IFoS (Preliminary) Examination through the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination; and

(ii) IFoS (Main) Examination, consisting of Written Examination and Personality Test. The Preliminary Examination is a screening test for admission to the Main Examination, and candidates are shortlisted on the basis of their relative performance in accordance with the prescribed criteria. 6.2 Learned counsel submitted that the applicant, Shri Aditya Shankar Prasad, had applied under the General Category for the IFoS (Preliminary) Examination, 2025 and appeared in the said examination on 25.05.2025. The result thereof was declared on 11.06.2025, wherein the applicant was declared unsuccessful. Learned counsel further P ANUKUMA

:10: OA No.120/258/2026

submitted that the UPSC declared the marks, cut-off marks and answer keys of the IFoS (Preliminary) Examination, 2025 on 18.05.2026, after declaration of the final result of the IFoS Examination, 2025. The applicant secured 103.34 marks in General Studies Paper-I against the prescribed cut-off of 105.34 marks for General Category candidates and, thus, fell short of the qualifying standard by 2 marks. 6.3 Learned counsel further submitted that, upon examining the official answer key published by the UPSC, the applicant alleged that the answers indicated in respect of Question Nos.13 and 79 of General Studies Paper-I, Set „C‟, were erroneous and that the alleged errors had adversely affected his score and consequentially his qualification in the IFoS (Preliminary) Examination, 2025. However, learned counsel contended that the UPSC has a robust mechanism for development and finalization of question papers and answer keys, which involves several rounds of meticulous scrutiny by different sets of subject experts. Learned counsel submitted that even after administration of the examination, a separate set of experts independently evaluates the answer keys during the revalidation meeting, wherein representations received from candidates, if any, are placed before the experts for their comments. Ambiguous questions, if any, are dropped from evaluation on the advice of the experts. 6.4 Learned counsel also submitted that the answer keys of Question Nos. 13 and 79 of GS Paper-I, Set „C‟, were also finalized after several rounds of scrutiny by different sets of subject experts and that the UPSC places reliance upon the opinion of its experts in formulating the answer keys. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254, and submitted that the law governing judicial restraint in examination matters is well settled. In support of the aforesaid contention, learned counsel referred to the observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 of the said judgment and also submitted that the burden lies upon the candidate to establish not merely that the key answer is incorrect but also that the P ANUKUMA

:11: OA No.120/258/2026

error is glaring, manifest and apparent on the face of the record, without requiring any inferential process of reasoning as ruled in the said judgment by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. 6.5 Learned counsel further submitted that a similar issue had arisen before this Tribunal in O.A. No.3090/2023, titled Potale Sheetal Shivaji v. Union Public Service Commission, wherein the applicant had challenged the answer keys of the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2022 and sought permission to appear in the Civil Services (Main) Examination, 2024 and/or grant of an additional attempt. This Tribunal dismissed the said OA, relying upon the aforesaid principles laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court (Annexure-A to the reply). Learned counsel accordingly contended that the validity of question papers and their answers lies within the exclusive domain of subject experts and not the Courts. 6.6 Learned counsel also referred to Special Civil Application No. 12450 of 2025, titled Shri Jaymin Mukeshbhai Patel v. Union of India & Others, pending before the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat at Ahmedabad, and submitted that the said petitioner had challenged the answer key of the IFoS Preliminary Examination and sought permission to appear in the IFoS Main Examination, 2025 and the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat, vide interim order dated 15.10.2025, directed the Commission to permit Shri Jaymin Mukeshbhai Patel to appear in the IFoS Main Examination, 2025, which was scheduled to commence from 16.11.2025. Further, the UPSC challenged the aforesaid interim order dated 15.10.2025 before the Hon‟ble Supreme Court by filing a Special Leave Petition, which was considered on 14.11.2025. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim order, having regard to the fact that the Main Examination was imminent, but expressed concern regarding the implications of such directions upon the conduct and integrity of the examination. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court, as reproduced in the counter affidavit, read as under: P ANUKUMA

:12: OA No.120/258/2026

“1. While we are not inclined to interfere with the Impugned order passed by the High Court, we are of the opinion that the directions, such as those in the order impugned before us, have a direct bearing on the conduct and integrity of the examination.

2. However, in view of the fact that the order impugned before us is passed way back on 15th October, 2025 and the Mains exam is imminent, we are disinclined to exercise our discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Special Leave Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.

3. We request the High Court to take up the writ petition expeditiously on its own merits, preferably within three months from today.” 6.7 Learned counsel also submitted that the aforesaid observations indicate that directions permitting candidates to appear in an examination notwithstanding their non-qualification at the preliminary stage may have a direct bearing upon the sanctity, integrity, transparency and uniform application of the examination process. Further, in compliance with the interim order dated 15.10.2025, the said Shri Jaymin Mukeshbhai Patel was provisionally permitted to appear in the IFoS Main Examination, 2025 and, having qualified in the Written Examination, was subsequently permitted to appear in the Personality Test pursuant to interim order dated 23.03.2026 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat. However, the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat, vide order dated 15.06.2026, disposed of the aforesaid petition after opening the sealed cover and finding that the petitioner had not been recommended. The relevant observations of the Hon‟ble High Court, as reproduced in the counter affidavit, read as under:

“This court having opened the sealed cover in the open court, found that the case of the petitioner has not been recommended.

4. In view of the aforesaid, having failed in the Indian Forest Service (Main) Examination, 2025, learned advocate for the petitioner does not press this petition any further.

5. Disposed of accordingly, Notice is discharged. Interim relief, if any, granted earlier stands vacated forthwith." P ANUKUMA

:13: OA No.120/258/2026

6.8 Learned counsel contended that the aforesaid proceedings before the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat did not result in any judicial determination regarding the correctness or otherwise of the answer key in the examination in question and, therefore, cannot furnish any basis for granting the relief sought by the applicant. 6.9 Learned counsel further submitted that Writ Petition (Civil) No. 118 of 2024, concerning the publication of answer keys and transparency in examinations conducted by the UPSC, was disposed of by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court vide order dated 14.10.2025. In compliance with the said order, the UPSC incorporated the practice of releasing provisional answer keys after the conduct of the Preliminary Examination with effect from the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2026. 6.10 Learned counsel for the respondents also submitted that the applicant, Shri Aditya Shankar Prasad, had not qualified for admission to the IFoS Main Examination, 2025 on the basis of his relative performance vis-à- vis other candidates and that neither any vested right nor any legal or constitutional right of the applicant had been violated. It is further submitted that the process of IFoS Examination, 2025 had already been completed, the final result having been declared on 08.05.2026, and the Commission had recommended the requisite number of candidates to the Ministry of Environment, Forest and Climate Change. 6.11 Lastly learned counsel submitted that the applicant‟s prayers seeking permission to appear directly in the IFoS Main Examination, 2026, without qualifying the IFoS Preliminary Examination, 2026 through the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2026, without counting an additional attempt and for keeping one seat reserved/vacant for him in the Main Examination, are untenable under the governing Examination Rules. Learned counsel contended that the extant Rules do not provide for permitting any candidate to appear directly in the Main Examination or for reserving/keeping vacant any seat for an individual candidate. As such, the instant OA deserves to be dismissed, being devoid of merit. P ANUKUMA

:14: OA No.120/258/2026

7. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the applicant mainly reiterated the submissions as noted above.

8. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings as well as the judgments on which the learned counsel for the parties placed reliance.

9.

ANALYSIS

9.1 Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and perusing the pleadings carefully, we find that the principal question which arises for our adjudication is whether the applicant has been able to establish that the answers prescribed by the UPSC in respect of Question Nos. 13 and 79 of Set „C‟ of General Studies Paper-I of the IFoS Preliminary Examination, 2025 are so manifestly and demonstrably erroneous that this Tribunal would be justified in interfering with the answer key finalized by the UPSC on the basis of the opinion of subject experts. 9.2 At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind that the scope of judicial review in matters concerning the correctness of answer keys in competitive examinations is limited. The courts and tribunals are not expected to substitute their own opinion for that of subject experts, nor are they expected to undertake an independent academic evaluation of questions and their possible answers. Interference is warranted only where the candidate establishes, by cogent and unimpeachable material, that the answer prescribed by the examining authority is patently wrong and that such error is apparent without undertaking an elaborate or inferential exercise of reasoning. 9.3 In this regard, the law has been authoritatively settled by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254. In paragraph 12 of the said judgment, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held as follows: "12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters P ANUKUMA

:15: OA No.120/258/2026

and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers."

The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further observed in paragraph 13 that the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the competing arguments and determine which answer is better or more correct, unless the candidate demonstrates that the key answer is patently wrong on the face of it. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also emphasized that the opinion of properly constituted expert committees deserves due deference and that judges should not assume the role of academic experts. 9.4 The aforesaid principle is not a new one. It flows from the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309, wherein, in paragraph 16, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court held that an answer key should ordinarily be presumed to be correct unless it is clearly demonstrated to be wrong. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further held that the incorrectness of the key answer must be established by reference to material which leaves no room for doubt, and not by an inferential process of reasoning or rationalisation. The relevant observation reads: "16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key- answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct." 9.5 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court reiterated and consolidated the legal position in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC

357. In paragraph 30, the Court summarized the governing principles, inter alia, to the effect that where the applicable examination rules do not provide for re-evaluation as a matter of right, a court may permit such exercise only in rare or exceptional cases where a material error is clearly established, without resort to inferential reasoning or rationalisation. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court further held that academic matters are best left to academics; the correctness of the answer key P ANUKUMA

:16: OA No.120/258/2026

should ordinarily be presumed; and, in the event of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 9.6 The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also cautioned that sympathy or compassion cannot be a ground for directing re-evaluation and that the examination process ought not to be unsettled merely because some candidates are dissatisfied with the result or perceive that an erroneous question or answer has caused them prejudice. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court underscored the importance of finality and certainty in public examinations and observed that the larger public interest must be kept in view before interfering with the results of a competitive examination. These principles are directly relevant while examining the applicant‟s challenge to the two answers in question. 9.7 We may also refer to the judgment of the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Subhash Chandra & Others v. State of Bihar & Others, reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 325, wherein the Hon‟ble Supreme Court emphasized the desirability of obtaining the opinion of an expert body in cases involving confusing or controversial academic questions. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court observed that, in academic matters, courts do not possess the necessary expertise and should ordinarily seek the assistance of subject experts rather than decide such questions on the basis of their own assessment. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also noticed that, in an objective-type examination, where several alternatives are provided, the candidate is required to select the most appropriate answer from amongst the alternatives. The mere possibility of more than one arguable answer would not, by itself, justify judicial interference with the answer key finalized by the competent examining authority. 9.8 The same approach was adopted by the Division Bench of the Hon‟ble Allahabad High Court in U.P. Secondary Education Service Selection Board v. State of U.P. & Others, decided on 02.11.2015, while considering a challenge to the answers prescribed in an examination. The Hon‟ble High Court, after referring to Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (supra) and Subhash Chandra (supra), reiterated that the answer key must ordinarily be presumed to be correct and that its incorrectness P ANUKUMA

:17: OA No.120/258/2026

must be demonstrated by reference to standard and prescribed textbooks or other unimpeachable material. It also emphasized that, where a question is confusing or controversial, the opinion of an expert body is the appropriate means of resolving the academic issue. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the applicant must satisfy this well-settled and exacting standard before any interference with the answer key can be contemplated. 9.9 Having regard to the aforesaid settled position of law, we now proceed to examine the applicant‟s challenge to Question Nos.13 and 79 separately. In respect of Question No. 13, the applicant contends that the answer prescribed by the UPSC, namely, “Only two”, is incorrect and that the correct answer ought to be “All the three”. In support of this contention, he has relied upon certain publications of ISRO and the Press Information Bureau concerning the Axiom-4, SpaDeX and Gaganyaan missions. According to him, the said material establishes that all three missions encourage and support microgravity research. We have perused the nature of the challenge as set up by the applicant. The question is not merely whether the three missions are connected, in a broad sense, with space research or whether some scientific experiments may be undertaken in the microgravity environment. The question specifically requires the candidate to identify how many of the listed missions encourage and support microgravity research. The answer would, therefore, depend upon the nature, objectives and scientific scope of each of the three missions, as well as the manner in which the expression “encourage and support micro-gravity research” is understood in the context of the question. 9.10 The publications relied upon by the applicant may indicate the scientific objectives, technological achievements or research-related activities associated with the respective missions. However, the mere fact that a mission is connected with human spaceflight, space docking, or scientific experimentation does not, by itself, conclusively establish that each such mission falls within the precise description used in the question. The material relied upon by the applicant has to be read in its P ANUKUMA

:18: OA No.120/258/2026

proper context and cannot be treated as conclusive merely because it emanates from official sources. In our considered view, the applicant‟s interpretation of those publications involves an assessment of the objectives and scope of the respective space missions. Such an exercise would necessarily require an evaluation of the relevant technical and scientific material, which is essentially within the domain of subject experts. 9.11 We are conscious of the applicant‟s submission that the publications of ISRO and the Press Information Bureau are authoritative governmental sources. However, the authority of the source and the conclusiveness of the proposition sought to be established are two distinct considerations. An official publication may be relevant material, but it must still be demonstrated that the material unequivocally establishes that the answer prescribed by the UPSC is wholly untenable and that no reasonable body of experts could regard it as correct. On the material and submissions placed before us, we are unable to hold that the applicant has discharged this burden in respect of Question No.13. 9.12 As regards Question No.79, the applicant disputes the answer “I, II and III” prescribed by the UPSC and asserts that the correct answer is “II and III only”. He relies upon Chapter 4 of the Class VII Geography textbook published by NCERT and submits that the first statement, namely, that without the atmosphere temperature would be well below the freezing point everywhere on the Earth's surface, is incorrect. According to him, the said textbook supports the exclusion of Statement I and, consequently, establishes option (d) as the correct answer. We have considered this submission as well. The applicant has relied upon an extract from a school-level textbook to support his interpretation of the first statement. However, the question has to be considered as a whole and in the context in which the statements have been framed. The mere reference to a particular passage in a textbook would not, without more, establish that the answer prescribed by the examining authority is manifestly wrong. It must be shown that the passage relied upon directly and unambiguously negates Statement I, and that there is no reasonable P ANUKUMA

:19: OA No.120/258/2026

academic basis on which the prescribed answer could have been arrived at. A difference in interpretation of a textbook passage, or an alternative understanding of the scientific proposition involved, cannot by itself satisfy the standard of patent error laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court. 9.13 We do not propose to undertake an independent scientific evaluation of the statements or to decide, by weighing competing interpretations of the textbook material, which of the two options is academically preferable. Such an exercise would amount to this Tribunal assuming the role of a subject expert, which the Hon‟ble Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned against. The applicant was required to demonstrate that the answer key was so obviously and demonstrably incorrect that no reasonable body of persons well-versed in the subject could regard it as correct. On the material placed before us, we are not persuaded that such a case has been made out in respect of Question No. 79 either. 9.14 We also find that the UPSC has specifically stated in its counter affidavit that the answer keys in question were finalized after several rounds of scrutiny by different sets of subject experts. It has further explained that its process of finalization involves independent revalidation of answer keys by another set of experts and consideration of representations, wherever received, by the experts concerned. According to the UPSC, ambiguous questions, if any, are excluded from evaluation on the advice of the subject experts. The applicant has not placed any material before us to establish that the aforesaid process was not followed in the present case, or that the expert assessment suffers from any demonstrable procedural infirmity, arbitrariness or patent error. In the absence of such material, and particularly when the challenge itself requires an academic assessment of the subject matter, we find no justification to substitute our opinion for that of the experts engaged by the examining authority. 9.15 We may also notice that the applicant has placed considerable reliance upon the judgment dated 14.10.2025 passed by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 118 of 2024. According to him, the P ANUKUMA

:20: OA No.120/258/2026

said judgment recognized the right of aggrieved candidates to pursue individual grievances and also contemplated moulding of relief in appropriate cases so as not to disturb the larger recruitment process. We have carefully considered this submission. No doubt, the Hon‟ble Supreme Court recorded the undertaking of the UPSC regarding publication of provisional answer keys, invitation of objections supported by authoritative sources and consideration thereof by subject experts before finalization of the answer key. The Hon‟ble Supreme Court also left it open to aggrieved candidates to pursue their individual grievances before the appropriate constitutional court. However, the aforesaid judgment does not lay down that every candidate disputing an answer key would automatically become entitled to re-evaluation or to admission in the Main Examination of a subsequent year. The liberty granted to aggrieved candidates to pursue their individual grievances does not dispense with the requirement of establishing that the answer key is demonstrably wrong in accordance with the principles laid down in Rahul Singh (supra) and Ran Vijay Singh (supra). Nor does the said judgment prescribe direct admission to the Main Examination of the succeeding year as an automatic or general consequence of a successful challenge. The nature of relief, if any, would necessarily depend upon the facts of the individual case, the governing examination rules and the stage reached in the recruitment process. 9.16 We also take note of the respondents‟ submission that the practice of publishing provisional answer keys and inviting objections in terms of the aforesaid directions has been implemented with effect from the Civil Services (Preliminary) Examination, 2026. The Preliminary Examination in the present case was conducted on 25.05.2025, whereas the judgment in Writ Petition (Civil) No.118 of 2024 was delivered on 14.10.2025. In these circumstances, the subsequent procedural arrangement cannot, by itself, establish that the answer key finalized for the examination held in May 2025 was incorrect. More importantly, the judgment dated 14.10.2025 did not adjudicate upon the correctness of Question Nos.13 and 79 involved in the present OA. The applicant, P ANUKUMA

:21: OA No.120/258/2026

therefore, cannot derive an entitlement to the reliefs claimed merely from the observations made in that judgment. 9.17 The applicant has also relied upon the interim order dated 15.10.2025 passed by the Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat in Shri Jaymin Mukeshbhai Patel v. Union of India & Others. We find that the said order was passed in the particular facts and circumstances of that case, when the IFoS Main Examination, 2025 was imminent. Although the Hon‟ble Supreme Court declined to interfere with the interim order in the Special Leave Petition, it expressly observed that directions of that nature have a direct bearing upon the conduct and integrity of the examination and declined to exercise its discretion under Article 136 of the Constitution having regard to the imminence of the Main Examination. The Hon‟ble High Court of Gujarat subsequently disposed of the petition after finding, upon opening the sealed cover, that the petitioner had not been recommended. Thus, the said proceedings did not culminate in any final judicial determination holding the disputed answer key to be incorrect. The interim arrangement made in that case, therefore, cannot be treated as a precedent conferring an enforceable right upon the applicant to be permitted to appear directly in the Main Examination of the subsequent year. 9.18 We are also unable to accept the applicant‟s contention that, since he secured 103.34 marks against the cut-off of 105.34 marks and would, according to his own calculation, secure 108.66 marks upon correction of the two answers, he must necessarily be treated as qualified for the Main Examination. The proposed enhancement of 5.32 marks is entirely dependent upon the applicant first establishing that both answers prescribed by the UPSC are incorrect and that the answers attempted by him are the correct ones. As discussed hereinabove, the applicant has not been able to establish either of these propositions to the standard required for judicial interference. Consequently, the consequential claim for enhancement of marks and declaration of qualification cannot be sustained. P ANUKUMA

:22: OA No.120/258/2026

9.19 We are equally unable to accept the prayer seeking permission to appear directly in the IFoS Main Examination, 2026, without qualifying the Preliminary Examination applicable to that recruitment year and without counting an additional attempt. Admission to the Main Examination is governed by the applicable Examination Rules and is dependent upon fulfillment of the prescribed eligibility and qualifying conditions. No provision of the governing Rules has been brought to our notice which enables this Tribunal to dispense with the Preliminary Examination requirement or to grant an additional attempt in the circumstances pleaded by the applicant. The principle of moulding of relief cannot be invoked to create an entitlement contrary to the governing rules, particularly when the foundational claim of erroneous evaluation has itself not been established. For the same reason, the prayer for reserving or keeping vacant a seat for the applicant in the Main Examination of 2026 is also not sustainable.

10. We may clarify that the applicant‟s grievance that the publication of the answer key and individual marks at a later stage deprived him of an earlier opportunity to raise objections has been duly considered. However, the timing of publication, by itself, does not establish that the answers finalized by the UPSC are incorrect. The applicant was required to establish the alleged errors by placing before this Tribunal material which conclusively demonstrated that the prescribed answers were patently wrong. The fact that he has relied upon publications of ISRO, the Press Information Bureau and an NCERT textbook does not, without a clear and unambiguous demonstration of the alleged errors, entitle him to have the answer key substituted by his own interpretation of those materials. We reiterate that the jurisdiction of this Tribunal is not intended to facilitate a fresh academic evaluation of questions and answers in a competitive examination.

11. Having regard to the foregoing discussion, we hold that the applicant has failed to discharge the burden cast upon him under the law laid down by the Hon‟ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (supra), U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh (supra) P ANUKUMA

:23: OA No.120/258/2026

and Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh (supra). The applicant has not demonstrated that the answers prescribed by the UPSC in respect of Question Nos.13 and 79 of Set „C‟ are glaringly or manifestly erroneous, or that no reasonable body of subject experts could regard them as correct. In the absence of such a demonstration, this Tribunal would not be justified in interfering with the answer key or directing re- evaluation of the applicant‟s answer-script.

12. In view of the foregoing discussion, we do not find any ground warranting interference with the answer key published by the UPSC in respect of Question Nos.13 and 79 of Set „C‟ of General Studies Paper-I of the IFoS Preliminary Examination, 2025. Consequently, the applicant is not entitled to the consequential reliefs of revision of marks, declaration of qualification for the Main Examination or direct admission to the IFoS Main Examination, 2026. Therefore, the instant OA is, accordingly, dismissed.

13. There shall be no order as to costs.

14. All pending MAs, if any, shall also stand disposed of accordingly.

(Sanjiv Kumar)

(Jayesh V. Bhairavia) Member (A)

Member (J)

nk P ANUKUMA