Wrong Answer Key on NCW Chairperson Costs Candidates Selection: P&H High Court Orders Marks for ‘None of the Above’ in IRB Constable Exam
Case Name: Lokesh v. State of Haryana and others (with connected matters)
Date of Judgment: 25 February 2026
Citation: CWP-11453-2019
Bench: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Jagmohan Bansal
Held: The Punjab and Haryana High Court held that where the answer key adopted by the examining authority is demonstrably incorrect and admits of no ambiguity, candidates cannot be denied marks for the correct answer. In the absence of doubt, judicial deference to the Expert Committee cannot override constitutional guarantees under Articles 14 and 16. The Court directed grant of marks to candidates who correctly marked “None of the above” for the question relating to the then Chairperson of the National Commission for Women.
Summary: The petitions arose from Advertisement No. 3/18 dated 16.04.2018 issued for recruitment to the post of Constable (General Duty) in the Indian Reserve Battalion (IRB). The petitioners had appeared in the written examination held on 30.12.2018 and challenged the answer key with respect to Question Nos. 6 and 56 (Paper Code ‘B’).
Question No. 56 asked: “Present Chairman of National Commission for Women (NCW)” with options including Lalitha Kumaramangalam and “None of the above.” At the time the question paper was prepared, Lalitha Kumaramangalam had been the Chairperson; however, she had demitted office in August 2018 and Rekha Sharma was the Chairperson at the time of examination in December 2018. Since Rekha Sharma was not among the options, candidates who marked “None of the above” had, in fact, selected the correct answer.
The Haryana Staff Selection Commission contended that objections were referred to the Chief Examiner and thereafter to an Expert Committee, whose opinion was final. Reliance was placed on Supreme Court precedents including Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. and Bihar Staff Selection Commission v. Arun Kumar, emphasising judicial restraint in academic matters.
The High Court examined the settled law governing interference in answer key disputes, including U.P.P.S.C. v. Rahul Singh, Ran Vijay Singh, and High Court of Tripura v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee. It reiterated that courts must ordinarily defer to expert opinion and interfere only in rare and exceptional cases where a material error is apparent without inferential reasoning.
Applying these principles, the Court held that Question No. 56 did not involve any academic debate or competing sources. The correct answer could be verified from the official website of the National Commission for Women. As on the date of examination (30.12.2018), Rekha Sharma was the Chairperson, and since her name was not included in the options, “None of the above” was the only correct answer. There was no ambiguity or scope for doubt. Denial of marks in such circumstances would result in miscarriage of justice and violation of Articles 14 and 16.
Accordingly, the Court directed the respondents to award marks for Question No. 56 to all petitioners who had opted for “None of the above.” If, upon addition of these marks, any petitioner secured marks above the last selected candidate in his category, he was to be issued an appointment letter.
With respect to Question No. 6, which pertained to a historical fact regarding a palace built in Narnaul, the Court declined interference. In view of the reference to the Expert Committee and absence of mala fides, it held that such academic questions fell within the domain of experts and did not warrant exercise of writ jurisdiction.
The Court further observed that more than 250 out of 500 advertised posts were stated to be vacant. Since the petitioners had approached the Court in 2019 when the selection process had not concluded, the plea of expiry of waiting list could not defeat their claim. Any appointment granted pursuant to the judgment would not disturb already selected candidates, and the petitioners’ date of joining would be treated as their date of appointment for all purposes. The benefit of the order was confined strictly to the present petitioners and not to fence-sitters.
Decision: The writ petitions were disposed of with directions to award marks for Question No. 56 to eligible petitioners and to consider them for appointment if they crossed the cut-off in their respective categories. The needful was directed to be completed within two months.