ORDER : Sujoy Paul, J. The core issue in this case is whether the answer given to question No.100 is correct or not ? The ancillary question is whether any interference is warranted by this Court if answer is found to be incorrect. 2. The admitted facts are that petitioner appeared in State Service Preliminary Examination, 2016 conducted by the respondents. The multiple choice questions (MCQs) were handed over to the candidates. The said MCQs are filed as Annexure P/2). The question No.100 reads as under :- "100. In which Section of Human Rights Protection Act, 1993 is 'Public Servant' defined? (A) Section 2 (B) Section 3 (C) Section 2(H) (D) Section 2(M)" Petitioner admittedly opted for option "(A)". The model answer-sheet shows that option "(D)" is treated as correct. The petitioner relied on the Protection of Human Rights Act, 1993. He submits that public servant is defined in Section 2(1)(m) of the Act and, therefore, petitioner's option "(A)" is absolutely correct. 3. Shri Verma contended that a provisional answer key was published and objections were invited within seven days. Certain objections were received by the respondents which were examined and a final model answer-key was published on 1.07.2016. Petitioner did not submit any objection and failed to respond to the provisional model answer-sheet. Hence, he now cannot turn around and say that his answer was either correct or near to correct. It is further urged that section 2 is not the correct answer as per opinion of expert body and section 2(M)/option "(D)" is the correct answer. 4. I have heard the parties at length and perused the record. 5. The question is as to what happens when correctness of key answer is questioned ? The Apex Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, AIR 1983 SC 1230 held that the key answer should be assumed to be correct, unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. The court further observed that the key answer must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct. In case of doubt, the key answer has to be preferred. The court further observed that the key answer must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct. In case of doubt, the key answer has to be preferred. This decision was followed by a Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court in the case of Pankaj Bhalla v. Rohilkhand University, Bareilly, 1989 All LJ 80. Another Division Bench of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow Bench), in Krishna Kumar Roy v. State of U.P., Writ Petn. No. 3108 of 1980, decided on 17.12.1980 : (reported in AIR 1981 All 287 ), held that the court should not lightly interfere with the opinion expressed by academic experts but may interfere only where the expert takes a view which no reasonable person could possibly take. 6. This Court in Alok Gupta v. M.P.P. Exam. Board, 2012 (1) MPLJ 482 considered various judgments and reiterated the legal position that unless the key answer is clearly demonstrated to be wrong, no interference should be made. Thus, it cannot be said that the answer-sheet/model answer is beyond the scope of judicial review by this court. 7. In the considered opinion of this Court, merely because petitioner did not submit any objection to the provisional model answer-key, that would not mean that a wrong answer could be treated as correct answer. The spinal issue is whether the answer given in the model answer-key is wrong or not. Question No.100 is relating to definition of "public servant". The definition of section 2(1)(m) reads as under :- "(m) "Public servant" shall have the meaning assigned to it in section 21 of the Indian Penal Code." There is no section like "section 2(M)" in the said Act. Thus, the option "(D)" is apparently incorrect. There was no option given like "section 2(1)(m)". Thus, the petitioner opted for "(A)" which cannot be said to be incorrect because section 2(1)(m) is also part of section 2. The nearest possible correct answer/option was opted by the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is clear that the model answer of question No.100 is clearly wrong. Petitioner has clearly demonstrated the said answer to be wrong. Suffice it to say that no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct. The nearest possible correct answer/option was opted by the petitioner. 8. In view of the aforesaid analysis, it is clear that the model answer of question No.100 is clearly wrong. Petitioner has clearly demonstrated the said answer to be wrong. Suffice it to say that no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct. Thus, by applying the ratio of Kanpur University (supra), I deem it proper to declare that the option "D" in said model answer-key is incorrect. The respondents shall treat the answer given to question No.100 by the petitioner as correct. As a consequence, the respondents shall give adequate marks to the petitioner for question No.100. In alternatively, as prayed the respondents may delete the marks given to question No.100 for all the candidates. After undertaking this exercise, appropriate mark sheet be issued and petitioner's case be considered in accordance with law. 9. Petition is allowed. No cost.