Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:40679 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 1150 of 2025 Petitioner :- Arjun Pal Respondent :- Union Of India Through Its Secretary, Ministry Of Personnel, Public Grievances & Pensions, Department Of Personnel And Training, Staff Selection Commission (Hq), Block No. 12, Cgo Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi And 2 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- A.S.G.I.,Aditya Singh,Pavan Kumar,Prachi Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- Prem Narayan Rai Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. 1. Heard Ms. Prachi Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner and Shri Prem Narayan Rai, learned counsel for respondent. 2. By means of this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution petitioner has questioned the respondent's action in changing the correct answer originally published in the provisional answer key according to which correct answer was option 3 whereas after the challenge was laid when final answer key was published then the correct option was shown as 4 to the same question. 3. Shri Prem Narayan Rai, learned cousnel for respondent was directed to obtain instructions while the petition was entertained. Today the instructions have been placed before the Court. 4. As per instructions Commission has a body of expert to evaluate and examine the challenge laid to the option given to the question in the tentative answer key. After evaluating and assessing the challenges qua the questions they reach to a conclusion which is ultimately accepted by the commission. The relevant portion of the instructions is reproduced hereunder: "The Commission follows the aforesaid Challenge System for finalizing the Answer Keys of the Computer Based Examination (CBE) conducted by it. The same system was followed for Constable (GD) Examination, 2024. Under this system, after the CBE is conducted, a notice is published on the website of the Commission giving Tentative Answer Keys and affording all the candidates an opportunity to challenge any Answer Key/ Question. All the challenges/ objections received from the candidates are sent to the Subject Matter Experts (SMEs) for their scruitny and recommendation. The SMEs are members of the academia. The SMEs examine the challenged questions, their tentative answer keys and the challenges/ objections raised by the candidates, and give their recommendations. The Commission goes by the recommendations of the SMEs as academic matters are best left to the academics. Thus, if a question has been challenged, there is a possibility that its Final Answer Key may be different from the Tentative Answer Key depending upon the recommendation of the SMEs. If, however, a question has not been challenged by any candidate, it does not go to the SMEs and its Tentative Answer Key becomes the Final Answer Key." 5. Ms. Prachi Shukla, learned counsel for petitioner questioning the decision again argues that she has got a book of expert of the field of reasoning in which the correct answer shown is the same as was given (option No.3). The literature of reasoning book of one Mr. Ankit Bhati has been placed before the Court. I have perused the same. Even though the option selected by petitioner has been shown to be the correct one to the question made but once the selection commission has constituted a body of expert which consists of more than one person of the field, then Commission is right in accepting the majority view and merely because a candidate has got another book of reasoning in which a different answer is shown to be correct option than the one given in the final answer sheet, the expert opinion obtain by the board cannot be brushed aside. Even otherwise this Court does not have the expertise to sit in appeal over and above the view expressed by the body of expertis. 6. Besides the above, the Court is also of the view that every selection has to be brought to its logical end by following the procedure prescribed for the same. It is not the case of the petitioner that he ever challenged the procedure adopted by the Commission. It is also not the case of the petitioner that the body of expert that was constituted by the Commission did not consist of expert. 7. In such above view of the matter, therefore, I decline to grant indulgence in the matter. 8. Petition is held to be devoid of merits and it is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 20.3.2025 Nadeem Digitally signed by :- NADEEM AHMAD High Court of Judicature at Allahabad