High Court Overstepped Review Jurisdiction by Reassessing Answer Key Without Any Glaring Error: Supreme Court Restores UPSSSC’s Answer
Case Name: Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission v. Ashok Yadav & Others
Date of Judgment: September 9, 2026
Citation: 2026 INSC 991
Bench :Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Vijay Bishnoi
Held: The Supreme Court held that constitutional courts cannot interfere with an answer selected by an examining body merely because another answer appears possible upon applying a different line of reasoning. Judicial review of an answer key is permissible only where the error is glaring, self-evident and demonstrable without any inferential reasoning or rationalisation.
The disputed question did not specify whether the books and persons mentioned in its options were to be matched on the basis of authorship or the subject of the book. The Commission had treated option “B” as the incorrect pair by matching each book with the person about whom it was written. This approach was neither arbitrary nor irrational.
The expert report relied upon by the High Court did not categorically declare option “B” incorrect. It merely stated that option “C” would be correct if the question were understood as concerning authorship, whereas option “B” would be correct if the books were matched with their respective subjects. Since the candidate had introduced authorship as a parameter even though the question itself contained no such qualification, his answer resulted from an assumption that could not be attributed to the examining body.
Summary: The Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission issued an advertisement in 2016 for the appointment of 3,133 Village Development Officers. A written examination was conducted, followed by the publication of a provisional and subsequently revised answer key.
One of the questions asked candidates to identify the incorrectly matched pair from the following options: Baburnama–Babur, Shahjahannama–Mohammad Tahir, Humayunnama–Humayun and Tuzuk-e-Jahangiri–Jahangir. The Commission treated option “B” as the correct answer, whereas the respondent selected option “C” on the ground that Humayunnama was authored by Gulbadan Begum and not Humayun.
The respondent’s writ petition was initially dismissed on the ground of delay and in view of the settled principle that courts must exercise restraint while examining challenges to answer keys. His intra-court appeal was also dismissed. However, the Allahabad High Court subsequently allowed his review application after relying on an expert report and directed that he be awarded one mark, his result be declared and his appointment be processed.
The expert report stated that option “C” would be correct if the pairs were assessed on the basis of authorship, but option “B” would be correct if they were assessed according to the person about whom the book was written. The Supreme Court observed that this report did not establish that the Commission’s answer was patently wrong.
Reiterating the principles governing judicial review of answer keys, the Court held that the correctness of the examining body’s answer must ordinarily be presumed. The candidate carries the burden of showing a manifest and indisputable error. Where doubt remains, its benefit must go to the examining authority rather than the candidate.
The Court further clarified that a question must be examined as it actually stands and not according to how a court believes it ought to have been framed. A candidate cannot read an unstated parameter into a question and then contend that the answer based on that assumption must be accepted.
Since neither the question nor option “B” suffered from any glaring or apparent error, the matter was not amenable to judicial interference. The High Court had consequently overstepped its jurisdiction by reassessing the answer and granting relief to the respondent.
Decision: The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission and set aside the judgment of the Allahabad High Court .