Refusing to interfere with the Haryana Civil Services (Executive Branch) preliminary examination process, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has ruled that courts cannot substitute the opinion of subject experts unless the alleged error in the answer key is glaring, manifest and beyond doubt. The court also held that in case of ambiguity or doubt, the benefit must go to the examination authority rather than the candidate.Dismissing a batch of petitions challenging the HCS preliminary examination result and answer key, Justice Jagmohan Bansal observed that the Haryana Public Service Commission (HPSC) had acted “in a bona fide and transparent manner” and any interference at the instance of a few unsuccessful candidates would stall the entire selection process.The petitions against the state of Haryana and another respondent challenged the preliminary examination result dated May 4 for recruitment to HCS (Executive Branch) and allied services conducted on April 26 pursuant to an advertisement dated January 30.The court noted that after the examination, the HPSC uploaded the provisional answer key and invited objections from candidates on April 28. The objections received were referred to subject experts. Based on their opinion, answers to certain questions were modified and a revised answer key was uploaded on May 2. following which the result was declared on May 4.The petitioners argued that answers to several questions in the General Studies paper and the Civil Services Aptitude Test were wrong and contrary to authentic material. They specifically challenged questions 17, 30, 31, 32, 59 and 80 in the General Studies examination and questions 6 and 50 in the aptitude test.While issuing notice of motion on May 21, the High Court had recorded the petitioners’ contention that the provisional as well as final answer keys in respect of certain questions were “absolutely wrong and incorrect, and contrary to reliable and primary source of information available”, rendering “the intent, aim and objective of fair competitive examination a farce”.The court, during the course of hearing, directed the HPSC Secretary to file an affidavit after obtaining comments from members of the expert committee on whose recommendations the objections had been decided. The court also asked the Commission to specify how many objections were received and how much time was taken in deciding them.In response, the Commission informed the court that the objections raised by candidates were reconsidered and a second opinion from experts was also obtained after the High Court’s interim order. However, the experts did not recommend any further change in the final answer key.The petitioners contended that the revised answer key had been finalised without granting them an opportunity to file cross-objections or respond to objections submitted by other candidates. Relying on the High Court judgment in Ramandeep Kaur versus Council of Scientific and Industrial Research (CSIR), they argued that the process violated fairness. They also asserted that the Commission and the court were required to independently apply their mind and not mechanically accept the experts’ opinion.Opposing the petitions, the HPSC maintained that all objections had been referred to subject experts and the Commission, not being an expert academic body itself, was entitled to rely on their opinion. It further argued that there was no rule, regulation or advertisement condition requiring candidates to be confronted with objections filed by others before the answer key was finalised.Justice Bansal extensively referred to the Supreme Court precedents governing judicial review in examination matters. The Bench quoted the judgements saying the burden was on the candidate to demonstrate not merely that the answer key was incorrect, but that it contained a glaring mistake apparent without inferential reasoning. The court further noted that constitutional courts must exercise “great restraint” while entertaining challenges to answer keys.The High Court also relied on another matter, wherein the Supreme Court held that courts should not re-evaluate answer sheets, academic matters should be left to experts, and in the event of doubt the benefit should go to the examination authority than to the candidate.Applying these principles to the present case, the High Court held that the objections raised by candidates had been duly considered by subject experts and the disputed questions had again been referred for reconsideration after the interim directions. The experts reiterated their earlier view.The court then held: “On examination of final answer key prepared by the Commission and answers suggested by petitioners, it comes out that it cannot be conclusively held that answers suggested by subject experts are manifestly incorrect. Thus, there is no scope to substitute opinion of subject experts.”The High Court specifically observed that there was “doubt with respect to answer to Question 59” relating to the Haryana Parivar Pehchan Act, 2021, but held that in view of settled law, “benefit of doubt must be extended to the Selection Commission”.Rejecting the plea, Justice Bansal observed that accepting the petitioners’ contention would create a “never-ending process of raising objections” making it impossible for the Commission to finalise the recruitment process.The court also took into account the fact that the examination under challenge was only a preliminary examination and the final examination was “going to take place in the end of this month”. It observed that interference at the instance of a few unsuccessful candidates would stall the entire selection process and would be “precarious for the public at large as well as candidates who have been selected for the final exam”.