ORDER : Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The correctness and legality of the directions passed by learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Circuit Bench, Ranchi in O.A./051/00005/14 is assailed in the present application by the respondent therein i.e., Union of India. 3. The applicant, who was a candidate for empanelment for the post of Goods Guard through a Limited Competitive Exam under Departmental Promotional Quota failed to qualify in the results having obtained 58 marks i.e., 60 being the qualifying marks. The correctness of the answer to Question No. 1(C) was essentially the issue before the learned Tribunal where the applicant sought re-evaluation. According to him, the Railway Establishment Manual Volume-1 contained correct answer relating to validity of Premium Air-break Power Certificate. The Question No. 1(C) quoted hereunder required the candidate to fill in the blanks on the validity period of number of days of the Premium Break Power Certificate: "1. Fill in the blanks: [c] Premium BPC is valid for ........ number of days." 4. As per the key answer, the validity period was for 12 number of days. As per the applicant, the details of Power Break Certificate provided under the Railway Establishment Manual, the answer was 12+3 days. It would be appropriate now to quote the relevant details of the Power Brake Certificate in the Railway Establishment Manual relied upon by the petitioner also: 2. Premium Air Brake Rakes VOXN, BCN, BNR, BOBRN, etc. 12 days for multiple loading, i.e., loading to be done within 12 days+3 days grace period in loaded condition. Minimum 95 Not mentioned The BPC will become invalid, if- (iv) Rake integrity is disturbed by more than Four 8-wheeledwagons. (v) Train is stabled more than 24 hours in examination yard instructions for Premium End to End rakes: (i) After lapse of 12 days, rake to be offered for examination at the first nominated intensive examination point in the direction of movement. (ii) After lapse of 15 days, rake either empty or loaded shall be offered for examination at the first exam point in the direction of movement (iii) Premium BPC shall be issued from the nominated "A" category depot. (iv) Normal End to End BPC shall be issued if the rake is not offered for examination in empty condition or at nominated "A" category exam point. (v) After each loading/unloading, the rake shall be subjected to GDR check. 5. (iv) Normal End to End BPC shall be issued if the rake is not offered for examination in empty condition or at nominated "A" category exam point. (v) After each loading/unloading, the rake shall be subjected to GDR check. 5. Learned Tribunal agreed with the contention of the applicant and found the key answer to be incorrect. It also referred to a number of BPC Certificate issued on different occasions where 12+3 was the validity period recognized for the Break Power Certificate. Learned Tribunal recognized the awareness of the applicant of the Railway Guidelines. Having concluded as above, learned Tribunal also surmounted the practical difficulties posed by confining the direction for re-evaluation of the particular answer to candidates, who had secured 58/59 marks in the test out of 157 candidates who had appeared, on the reasoning that only those could be effected by re-evaluation process since the maximum marks for the said question was only 2. Rest of the candidates, who scored below 58 marks would not be benefited by re-evaluation process. 6. The petitioner-Union of India has challenged it on the grounds that such approach in exercise of powers of judicial review was not open to the learned Tribunal as it amounted to rewriting the answer, which is in the domain of experts. At best, learned Tribunal would have directed the respondents to obtain the opinion of experts on the correctness of answer. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by Apex Court in the cases of Mahavir Singh vs. Khiali Ram and Ors. reported in (2009)3 SCC 439 ; H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. reported in (2010)6 SCC 759 : 2010(3) JLJR (SC) 127; The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. Ayan Das and Ors. reported in (2007) 8 SCC 242 . A Division Bench Judgment rendered by. Delhi High Court in the case of Salil, Maheshwari vs. The High Court of Delhi and Anr. in W.P.(C) No. 4976 of 2014 dated 5th September, 2014 and also in the case of N. Lokananandham vs. Chairman, Tele-Com. Commission and Ors. reported in (2008)5 SCC 155 . 7. A Division Bench Judgment rendered by. Delhi High Court in the case of Salil, Maheshwari vs. The High Court of Delhi and Anr. in W.P.(C) No. 4976 of 2014 dated 5th September, 2014 and also in the case of N. Lokananandham vs. Chairman, Tele-Com. Commission and Ors. reported in (2008)5 SCC 155 . 7. Learned counsel for the Railway submits that the learned Tribunal exceeded its jurisdiction and committed an error in directing the Respondent-Railway to reevaluate the answer in relation to Question No. 1(C) on a new answer 12+3 different from the key answer by confining it to candidates, who had obtained 59 marks. The approach of learned Tribunal was also flawed because the relevant Rules do not provide for re-evaluation of answer-sheet. The answer would not per se be declared as perverse or irrational, warranting interference under the power of judicial review of learned Tribunal. Therefore, the error needs to be corrected. 8. Learned counsel for the applicant/respondent herein has supported the impugned direction. He has referred to extract of Railway Establishment Manual enclosed to the counter affidavit as referred to above and also the certificates granted by the competent authority at Annexure-5 issued by certain Railways Officers where BPC validity period is shown as 12+3 days. Learned counsel has relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University through Vice-Chancellor and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 and submits that answer has been ascertained from standard and prescribed Railway Establishment Manual itself. If the key answer is proved to be wrong, the direction issued by learned Tribunal did not suffer from any errors in law. 9. We have considered the submission of learned counsel for the parties and gone through the relevant materials on record and the judgments cited at the bar. We may first advert to the reasoning applied by learned Tribunal to come to the conclusion that the key answer was incorrect. The extract of the details of Break Power Certificate also referred to in the impugned order and taken from the Railway Establishment Manual on being carefully examined denotes that there are more than one parts to it. The first part deals with the validity period of Premium Air-brake Rakes and states it to be 12 days for multiple loading, i.e., loading to be done within 12 days. The first part deals with the validity period of Premium Air-brake Rakes and states it to be 12 days for multiple loading, i.e., loading to be done within 12 days. The second part contains 3 days grace period in loaded condition. The Question No. 1(C) in itself is plain and simple asking for validity period of a Premium Break Power Certificate. It is not hedged with any qualifying condition as to whether the validity is to be extended for a grace period, if the wagon is in loaded condition. The search for a correct answer in such a technical area has obvious limitation to a Court exercising powers of judicial review. There are connotation to the different periods of validity in the Railway Establishment Manual. Expressions used in the Railway Establishment Manual quoted above shows different words being used i.e., multiple loading, loading and loaded condition. As observed hereinabove, the question was plain and simple and did not contain the qualifying condition where the grace period was extended to 3 days in loaded condition. The approach of the learned Tribunal by concluding a different correct answer was flawed with serious risk of error as it lied in the domain of experts. As has been observed by Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University (supra) relied upon by the respondents-applicants themselves, the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong. It should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong in the sense that it must be such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The key answer applies uniformly to all the candidates. Learned Tribunal did not consider it proper to refer it for an expert opinion as to the correctness of answer. The Rules of Limited Competitive Exam did not permit re-evaluation. In those circumstances, learned Tribunal was in clear error in coming to a different answer to Question No. 1(C) in issue. When the Rules did not permit re-evaluation, it was not proper for the learned Tribunal to direct re-evaluation of the question of answer. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors. When the Rules did not permit re-evaluation, it was not proper for the learned Tribunal to direct re-evaluation of the question of answer. Reliance can also be placed upon the judgment rendered by Apex Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission and Ors. reported in (2004) 6 SCC 714 : 2004 (3) JLJR (SC) 357. The concern of the Courts in such cases is to prevent facilitating re-evaluation claims randomly and arbitrarily, by candidates who venture to take a chance that their answers might receive higher marks than initially awarded. In the present case, there was a answer key which gave 12 as the correct answer to the question. Even if, the contention of the applicant is accepted on the basis of his reasoning, there could be two possible answers to the question. In that case answer to the simple Question No. 1(C) is left ambiguous. Learned Tribunal should not have, therefore, chosen for itself to identify the correct answer in an area, which is in the domain of experts. 10. We are, therefore, satisfied with the grounds of challenge urged by the petitioner-Union of India. The impugned direction therefore cannot be upheld in the eye of law and in the light of the judgments rendered by Apex Court on the subject. Accordingly, the order dated 21.9.2015 passed by learned Tribunal is set aside. The writ petition stands allowed.