1 CGHC010351652024 2026:CGHC:34378 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 5237 of 2024 Order Reserved on 20.07.2026 Order Delivered on 06.08.2026 1 - Likesh Singh Bhardwaj S/o Shri Uttra Kumar Bhardwaj Aged About 34 Years R/o Devnagar Koni Ward No.67 Bilaspur , District- Bilaspur (C.G) 2 - Sanman Ram S/o Ghular Ram Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Chatakpur Post- Dandadih, Tahsil - Duldula, District - Jashpur (C.G) 3 - Shailesh Kumar Tandan S/o Gopal Prasad Tandan Aged About 35 Years R/o Tarbabhar, Behind Guru Ghasidas Mandir, Bilaspur District- Bilaspur (C.G.) 4 - Kamlesh Kumar Kuswaha S/o Shri Sureshwar Prasad Kushwaha, Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Pashupatipur, Tahsil- Vadrajnagar District - Balrampur (C.G.) 5 - Prashant Kumar S/o Shri Dhanraj Aged About 25 Years R/o Village -Junwani , Post- Doma , Tahsil - Bhakhara, District - VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 Dhamtari (C.G.) 6 - Chandreshekhar Yadav S/o Ratiram Yadav Aged About 36 Years R/o Village -Rajghata, Tahsil - Kharsiya, District- Raigarh (C.G.) 7 - Tejendra Kumar S/o Champuram Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Mangra Post- Katalboad District- Dhamtari (C.G.) 8 - Dinesh Kumar S/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village - Joba , Thana - Tumgaon District - Mahasamund (C.G.) 9 - Ravishankar S/o Ashok Kumar Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Palari District - Baloda Bazar (C.G.) 10 - Hemanshi Sahu D/o Gopal Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village- Mangsa Ward No.9 Post- Pathari, Thana Dharsiwa, District - Raipur (C.G.) 11 - Bheemradhawaj Thakur S/o Patiram Thakur Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Karathi Sadakpara, Tahsil Bhanupratappur, Distt.- North Baster Kanker (C.G.) 12 - Renuka Dhiwer D/o Shri Tejram Dhiwer Aged About 34 Years R/o Ward No.29 Behind B.J.P Office, Bti Road , Mahasamund, Distt.- Mahasamund (C.G.) 13 - Hema Vishwakarma D/o Shri Manohar Lal Vishwakarma Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Khamariya, Ward No. -2 Malhari Dhamtari , Distt.- Dhamtari (C.G.) 3 14 - Harish Kumar S/o Shri Dharmuram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village- Limora, Balod Distt.- Balod (C.G.) 15 - Aarti Tiwari W/o Shri Hemant Kumar Tiwari, Aged About 38 Years R/o House No . 198 Brahman Para Post And Tahsil - Lormi , Distt.- Mungeli (C.G.) 16 - Bharti W/o Shri Shrawan Kumar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village- Bhatoli , House No. 82/2 Nawapara, Batoli, Surguja Distt.- Surguja (C.G.) 17 - Bharat Bhushan Jaiswal S/o Shri Daniram Jaiswal Aged About 24 Years R/o House No. 299 Masaniya Khurd, Sakti, Distt.- Sakti (C.G.) 18 - Digeshwar Prasad Bramhe S/o Shri Dayaram Bramhe Aged About 36 Years R/o Bana-1 (Bana) Raipur, Distt. - Raipur (C.G.) 19 - Lakshmi D/o Shri Raghunandan Lal Neta Aged About 28 Years R/o Ward No. 18 Rewadeeh, Rajnandgaon, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 20 - Mokshada Yadav D/o Shri Mahesh Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o 410 , Naya Para, Ward No 12 Bemetara, Distt.- Bemetara (C.G.) ... Petitioners versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Education Department Mahanadi Bhaawan Mantralaya, Capital Complex, New Raipur, Distt.-Raipur (C.G.) 4 2 - Chairman Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur , Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Exam Controller Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Raipur, Distt.- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Petitioners :- Mr. Rajendra Patel, Advocate For State :- Mr. Shobhit Mishra, Dy. G.A. For Respondents No. 2 & 3:- Mrs. Akanksha Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Order 1. By way of the instant writ petition, the petitioners have challenged the Final Answer Key of the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (CG TET)–2024 (Upper Primary), on the ground that Question No. 56 of Set-A, Question No. 55 of Set-B, and Question No. 57 of Sets-C and D have been wrongly omitted/cancelled by the respondent authorities. It is the case of the petitioners that the cancellation of the aforesaid question is arbitrary and contrary to the guidelines issued by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CG VYAPAM) governing the evaluation and preparation of 5 the final answer key. Accordingly, the petitioners seek appropriate relief against the impugned Final Answer Key. 2. The petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ by commanding and directing the respondent no. 2 & 3 to consider the Question no. 56 of set-A, Que. No. 55 of Set-B and Que. No. 57 of Set-C & D as valid questions and to release the result afresh accordingly. 10.2 That, the respondents may kindly be directed to consider and decide the representation of the petitioners as per the guidelines and instructions within a stipulated time period. 10.3 Any other relief, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper, may also be passed in favor of the petitioner together with cost of the petition.” 3. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioners, being eligible candidates, applied for and appeared in the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (CG TET)–2024 (Upper Primary) conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CG VYAPAM) pursuant to the notification dated 04.03.2024. After the examination held on 23.06.2024, the 6 respondent Board published the provisional/model answer key inviting objections, under which the petitioners had secured qualifying marks. However, while issuing the Final Answer Key and the result, the Board cancelled five questions, including Question No. 56 of Set-A, Question No. 55 of Set-B, and Question No. 57 of Sets-C and D relating to the Hindi section. According to the petitioners, the cancellation of the aforesaid question is wholly arbitrary and contrary to Clause 12 of the examination guidelines, which permits cancellation of a question only where (i) the question is defective in its construction, (ii) none of the options is correct, (iii) there is a material discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions leading to ambiguity, or (iv) a printing error renders the correct answer indeterminable. It is the petitioners' case that the impugned question does not suffer from any of the aforesaid defects and, therefore, ought to have been evaluated instead of being cancelled. Despite submitting a detailed representation dated 23.09.2024 requesting reconsideration of the Final Answer Key, no decision has been taken by the respondent authorities. Aggrieved by the arbitrary omission/cancellation of the said question and the consequential prejudice caused to their result, the petitioners have preferred the present writ petition. 7 4. Mr. Rajendra Patel, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the impugned action of the respondent authorities in cancelling Question No. 56 of Set-A, Question No. 55 of Set-B, and Question No. 57 of Sets-C and D in the Final Answer Key of the CG Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)-2024 (Upper Primary) is arbitrary, illegal and contrary to the examination guidelines issued by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board. It is contended that Clause 12 of the examination instructions specifically enumerates the circumstances in which a question may be omitted or cancelled, namely, where the question is structurally defective, none of the options is correct, there exists a material discrepancy between the Hindi and English versions causing ambiguity, or a printing error renders the correct answer indeterminable. According to the petitioners, the impugned question satisfies none of the aforesaid conditions and, therefore, could not have been cancelled. It is further submitted that the remaining questions in the same series were evaluated independently and marks were awarded in accordance with the note appended to the question booklet, demonstrating that the impugned question was distinct and capable of evaluation. Learned counsel argues that the respondent Board, having itself prescribed the conditions 8 governing cancellation of questions, was bound to adhere to the same and could not act in derogation thereof. It is further submitted that, under the provisional/model answer key, the petitioners had secured the qualifying marks; however, on account of the arbitrary cancellation of the impugned question in the Final Answer Key, their scores were reduced to between 74.5 and 74.9 marks, thereby depriving them of the minimum qualifying marks of 75 prescribed for candidates belonging to the OBC (NCL), SC and ST categories. It is contended that although the TET is only an eligibility examination and not a recruitment examination, failure to qualify renders the petitioners ineligible to participate in future recruitment for the post of teachers, causing serious and irreparable prejudice. It is also submitted that the petitioners had submitted a detailed representation before the competent authority raising the aforesaid grievances; however, no decision has been taken thereon till date. Accordingly, it is prayed that the impugned Final Answer Key, to the extent of cancellation of the aforesaid question, be set aside and the respondent authorities be directed to evaluate the said question in accordance with law and revise the results of the petitioners. 9 5. Mr. Shobhit Mishra, learned State counsel submits that the present writ petition challenges the Final Answer Key of the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (CG TET)-2024 (Upper Primary), whereby Question No. 56 of Set-A, Question No. 55 of Set-B, and Question No. 57 of Sets-C and D have been omitted/cancelled. It is submitted that the grievance raised by the petitioners pertains exclusively to the preparation of the Final Answer Key and the declaration of the result by the respondent authorities, namely the Chairman and the Examination Controller of the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CG VYAPAM). Learned State counsel contends that the allegations made in the writ petition are directed solely against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, and no specific allegation of illegality, arbitrariness, or inaction has been levelled against the State Government. It is further submitted that no substantive relief has been claimed against respondent No. 1/State, which has been impleaded only as a formal party to the proceedings. Accordingly, it is argued that the principal contesting respondents in the present petition are the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board and its Examination Controller, who alone are competent to explain and justify the process adopted in preparing the Final Answer Key and cancelling the impugned questions. In these 10 circumstances, learned State counsel submits that no detailed reply is required to be filed on behalf of the answering respondent No. 1/State at this stage and, while denying all allegations not specifically admitted, prays that the petition, insofar as it seeks any relief against the State Government, deserves to be dismissed. 6. Mrs. Akanksha Singh, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Avinash Singh, learned counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 2 and 3 submits that the writ petition is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed. It is submitted that the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (CG VYAPAM), constituted by the State Government for conducting various recruitment and eligibility examinations, conducted the CG Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)-2024 in a fair, transparent and uniform manner. After the examination, the provisional/model answer key was published inviting objections from all candidates. The objections received were placed before an Expert Committee comprising subject experts, and only after obtaining the opinion and recommendations of the said Committee was the Final Answer Key published. It is contended that the impugned decision was taken solely on the basis of expert opinion and there was neither arbitrariness nor mala fide in the process adopted by the Board. Learned counsel further 11 submits that Question Nos. 55 to 57 in Set-B were based on a common comprehension passage (गश), whereas in Set-A, due to a printing error, the passage appeared after one of the questions based upon it. Similarly, in Sets-C and D, the sequence of the passage and the questions was also incorrectly arranged, resulting in the candidates being required to answer questions before the relevant passage was provided. According to the respondent Board, such an error caused confusion amongst the candidates and affected the structural integrity of the questions. Consequently, upon considering the objections received, the Expert Committee recommended deletion of the entire set of passage-based questions in all sets in order to maintain uniformity and fairness amongst all candidates. It is submitted that the decision squarely falls within Clause 12(i) of the Examination Instructions, which permits cancellation where the structure of the question is defective, and Clause 12(iv), which permits cancellation where a printing error prevents proper answering of the question. Accordingly, marks for the deleted questions were awarded on a pro-rata basis strictly in accordance with the Examination Instructions. 7. It is further contended that the petitioners cannot claim any vested right on the basis of the provisional/model answer key, 12 as the final result is prepared only on the basis of the Final Answer Key published after considering objections and expert opinion. The Board has acted uniformly in respect of all candidates, and every correction or deletion has affected all candidates alike. There is no provision either under the Examination Instructions or under law for grant of bonus marks or for entertaining representations after publication of the Final Answer Key. The mere fact that the petitioners secured qualifying marks under the provisional answer key does not confer any enforceable right to seek alteration of the Final Answer Key. Learned counsel also submits that the scope of judicial review in matters relating to academic evaluation and answer keys is extremely limited. The decision of the Expert Committee carries a presumption of correctness and ordinarily ought not to be interfered with unless demonstrated to be patently arbitrary or perverse. Reliance is placed on the judgments of the Division Bench of this Court in Umang Gouraha v. State of Chhattisgarh, Manish Kumar & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others, and Ghanshyam Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh & Another, wherein the procedure adopted by the respondent Board in finalising answer keys and deleting defective questions was upheld. Reliance is also placed on the decision of the Hon'ble 13 Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357, wherein it has been held that courts should refrain from substituting their opinion for that of subject experts in academic matters and, in case of doubt, the benefit must ordinarily go to the examination authority rather than the candidate. On the aforesaid grounds, learned counsel prays that the writ petition, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed. 8. Upon submission made by counsel for the respondent Nos. 2 and 3/Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners are not seeking any bonus marks, nor are they seeking revaluation or scrutiny of their answer sheets. The limited grievance of the petitioners is that the question in dispute, i.e. Question No. 56 of Set-A, Question No. 55 of Set-B and Question No. 57 of Set-C & D, has wrongly been deleted by the respondent Board, despite the fact that the said question does not fall within any of the categories mentioned in the instructions issued by the Board for deletion of a question. Learned counsel would further submit that the petitioners are only seeking consideration of the said question as a valid question and consequential declaration of the result afresh. It is submitted that if the said question is held to be valid, the 14 candidates who have attempted the said question correctly would automatically be entitled for award of marks for the said question. Thus, the petitioners are not claiming any additional or bonus marks. It is further submitted that the writ petition is maintainable against respondent Nos. 2 and 3, as the entire examination process was conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board and the final answer key, whereby the disputed questions were deleted, has also been issued by the said respondents. Therefore, the respondent Board is the principal contesting authority in the present matter. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the challenge raised by the petitioners is not with regard to the correctness or academic validity of the question, but is limited to the legality of the decision taken by the respondent Board in deleting the question contrary to its own instructions. It is submitted that as per the instructions issued by the Board, a question could be deleted only in specified circumstances, such as incorrect framing of the question, absence of a correct option, discrepancy between Hindi and English translation, or a printing error resulting in ambiguity. However, the disputed question does not fall within any of the said categories. It is submitted that the disputed question was accompanied by the relevant passage and was otherwise 15 properly framed. There was no defect in the question, no ambiguity in the options, and no discrepancy in translation. Therefore, the deletion of the said question was arbitrary and contrary to the instructions issued by the respondent Board. 9. Learned counsel would further submit that although three questions were based on a common passage, objections were raised only with respect to the other two questions which were not accompanied by the passage. However, the respondent Board has proceeded to delete all three questions, including the disputed question, which was accompanied by the passage and did not suffer from any defect. Such action of the respondent Board has caused serious prejudice to the petitioners. It is submitted that the respondent Board has wrongly stated that marks for deleted questions were awarded by applying the formula prescribed in the examination instructions. However, the petitioners are not claiming any benefit under the said formula. The petitioners' grievance is that if the disputed question is treated as valid, the candidates who have given the correct answer would be entitled for one full mark for the said question, which would enable several candidates, including the petitioners, to secure the minimum qualifying marks. Learned counsel would further submit that there is no provision for filing objections or 16 representations after publication of the final answer key. Therefore, the petitioners have rightly invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Hon'ble Court, as the action of the respondent Board in deleting the question contrary to its own instructions is amenable to judicial review. It is further submitted that the judgments relied upon by the respondent Board are not applicable to the facts of the present case. The said judgments relate to the issue of revaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets, whereas the petitioners herein are not seeking revaluation of their answer sheets. The petitioners are only challenging the decision-making process adopted by the respondent Board while deleting the disputed question. It is, therefore, submitted that the respondent Board, being bound by its own instructions, could not have deleted the disputed question in absence of any defect prescribed therein. The action of the respondent Board has resulted in reduction of marks of the petitioners, who had otherwise secured the qualifying marks as per the model answer key. In view of the aforesaid submissions, learned counsel for the petitioners prays that the writ petition may kindly be allowed and the respondent Board may be directed to treat the disputed question as valid and declare the result afresh after considering the said question in accordance with law. 17 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as well as learned counsel appearing for the respondents and have carefully perused the pleadings, documents placed on record and the submissions advanced by the respective parties. 11. The grievance raised by the petitioners in the present writ petition is confined to the deletion of Question No. 56 of Set-A, Question No. 55 of Set-B and Question No. 57 of Sets- C and D from the Final Answer Key of the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test (CG TET)-2024 (Upper Primary). According to the petitioners, the aforesaid questions have been wrongly deleted by the respondent Board as the same do not fall within any of the categories prescribed under Clause 12 of the Examination Instructions, and therefore, the said questions ought to have been evaluated. 12. On the other hand, the respondent Board has justified the deletion of the aforesaid questions on the ground that the said questions were based upon a common passage and, due to printing/structural errors, the passage and the questions were not arranged in the correct sequence in certain sets. It has been submitted that the matter was placed before the Expert Committee constituted by the Board, which 18 after considering the objections and examining the issue, opined that the aforesaid questions were required to be deleted in order to maintain uniformity and fairness amongst all the candidates. It is further stated that after deletion of the questions, marks were awarded to all the candidates in accordance with the formula prescribed under the Examination Instructions. 13. From the perusal of the record, particularly the question booklet and the material placed by the respondent Board, it is evident that the issue regarding deletion of the aforesaid questions was not decided mechanically by the respondent Board, but the same was placed before the Expert Committee comprising subject experts. The Expert Committee, after examining the nature of the questions, the arrangement of the passage and the questions based thereon, recorded its opinion that due to the printing error and improper sequence of the passage and questions, the candidates could have faced difficulty while attempting the said questions. Accordingly, the Committee recommended deletion of such questions in all sets to ensure uniform treatment to all candidates. 19 14. The petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the opinion rendered by the Expert Committee suffers from any mala fide, arbitrariness, perversity or violation of any statutory provision. Merely because another view regarding the correctness or validity of the question is possible, the same by itself cannot be a ground for this Court to substitute its own opinion over the opinion of the subject experts. 15. It is well settled that in matters relating to academic evaluation, preparation of answer keys and assessment of correctness of questions, the scope of judicial review is extremely limited. The Court does not possess the expertise to examine the correctness of academic decisions taken by subject experts. The role of the Court is confined to examining whether the decision-making process is vitiated by illegality, arbitrariness, mala fide or violation of any statutory or constitutional provision. 16. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357, has held that the Court should be extremely cautious while interfering in matters relating to examination and evaluation and should ordinarily refrain from substituting its opinion for that of the experts. The Hon'ble Supreme Court 20 observed that if there is a doubt regarding the correctness of an answer key, the benefit should ordinarily go to the examination authority rather than the candidates, as the examination authority is entrusted with the responsibility of conducting the examination. 17. Similarly, in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Another, (2010) 6 SCC 759, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of experts and cannot undertake the exercise of re-evaluating the answers or examining the correctness of the answer key. 18. Further, in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that when the decision of an expert body is challenged, the Court should not lightly interfere unless there is a clear case of mala fide or violation of statutory provisions. 19. The first judgment that may be taken guidance from in this regard is Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357, wherein the Supreme Court explained the limited scope of interference in matters relating to academic evaluation. Relevant observation in above-mentioned judgment is reproduced below: 21 “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. If a statute, Rule or regulation governing an examination permits the re- evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3. The court should not at all re- evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate — it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 22 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” (emphasis supplied) 26. The next decision that may also be referred to is Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254, wherein the Supreme Court emphasised that the burden of demonstrating any error in the answer key rests squarely on the candidate challenging it. The Court observed that academic evaluation is primarily within the domain of expert bodies, and judicial interference is warranted only in cases of clearly demonstrable error. The relevant observations are reproduced hereunder: “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 and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers… 13. As far as the present case is concerned, even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated 23 by two Expert Committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26-member Committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is better or more correct.” (emphasis supplied) 20. The issue regarding CLAT examination has also travelled till Supreme Court in Siddhi Sandeep Ladda v. Consortium of National Law Universities and Another, 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1144, where it was observed that: “8. Insofar as the present appeals are concerned, at the outset, we must state that in academic matters, the Courts are generally reluctant to interfere, inasmuch as they do not possess the requisite expertise for the same. However, when the academicians themselves act in a manner that adversely affects the 24 career aspirations of lakhs of students, the Court is left with no alternative but to interfere.”(emphasis supplied) 21. On the scope and extent of judicial review in academic decisions, it is well-settled that in matters relating to academic evaluation, the scope of interference under Article 226 of the Constitution is available under very narrow compass. Courts do not act as appellate authorities over the decisions of subject experts although indulgence can be given when interference is warranted in exceptional cases where the error is demonstrable on the face of the record. 22. The legal position, therefore, is that the judicial review in such matters is not prohibited but it is to be confined to examining whether the decision making in finalizing key answer suffers from manifest error. The Court cannot enter into an exercise of alternative interpretation of questions. The record indicates that the process of finalisation of the answer key, has undergone a structured and layered scrutiny mechanism. Such an exercise by experts in the related field establishes a strong presumption of correctness, particularly in academic matters, unless a clear and demonstrable error is established. 25 23. The settled position of law makes it clear that Courts must refrain from substituting their own opinion in place of that of subject experts. Even where two views are possible, the view taken by the final academic authority must ordinarily prevail, provided it is a plausible view based on academic reasoning. 24. In the present case, the respondent Board has not acted on its own without any basis. The decision to delete the questions was taken after obtaining the opinion of the Expert Committee. The deletion was applied uniformly to all candidates and there is no allegation that any particular candidate or category of candidates has been discriminated against. The petitioners have also not challenged the grant of proportionate marks after deletion of the questions, which has been extended uniformly to all candidates. 25. The contention of the petitioners that they had secured qualifying marks as per the provisional/model answer key and that their marks have subsequently fallen below the qualifying criteria cannot, by itself, confer any enforceable right upon them. It is settled law that a provisional answer key does not create any vested right in favour of candidates, as the final result has to be prepared only on the basis of the Final 26 Answer Key issued after considering objections and expert opinion. 26. The reliance placed by learned counsel for the petitioners on Clause 12 of the Examination Instructions also does not assist their case. The respondent Board has justified the deletion on the ground of defective sequencing of the passage and questions, which has been considered by the Expert Committee as affecting the structure and fairness of the question. The opinion of the Expert Committee cannot be discarded merely because the petitioners seek another interpretation of the said instructions. 27. This Court is also conscious of the fact that the Chhattisgarh Teacher Eligibility Test is an eligibility examination and the petitioners have approached this Court only because, after deletion of the questions and preparation of the final result, they could not secure the qualifying marks. However, such consequence cannot be a ground for interference when the process adopted by the respondent Board is found to be uniform, transparent and based upon expert opinion. 28. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court finds that the petitioners have failed to establish that the action of the 27 respondent Board in deleting the disputed questions suffers from any illegality, arbitrariness or procedural impropriety warranting interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, no case for interference is made out. The writ petition, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 29. No order as to costs. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Vishakha 28 HEAD- NOTE Courts should exercise restraint and utmost caution in interfering with the process of examination and evaluation. The opinion of subject experts is ordinarily entitled to due deference, and courts should not substitute their own views for that of the experts. Re- evaluation of answers or scrutiny of the correctness of an answer key is impermissible unless exceptional circumstances warrant interference. Where reasonable doubt exists, the benefit ordinarily goes to the examination authority.