J UDGMENT : Ashutosh Kumar, CJ. 1. We have heard Dr. A. Saraf, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P. Baruah and P.K. Bora for the petitioner and Mr. T.J. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. P.P. Dutta for the Gauhati High Court. 2. The petitioner herein is a practicing advocate of this Court and had appeared in the Assam Judicial Service (Grade-III) Preliminary Examination but could not pass the examination for 1(one) mark. He hails from Unreserved Category; for which category the cut-off marks was 75 and the petitioner learnt from the results/marks uploaded on the official website of the Gauhati High Court that he has obtained 74 marks, i.e. one mark short of crossing the threshold. 3. The contention of the petitioner is that one of the questions in the Preliminary Examination, namely, Question No.97, obligated the candidates to answer one of the choices from the multiple choices given. According to the petitioner, two choices were correct and, therefore, the petitioner should have been marked for attempting that question. Had he been marked for that question, he would have got 75 marks and have crossed the threshold. 4. Question No.97 (English translation) is reproduced as hereunder:- “97. Under which Section of the Bharatiya Sakhya Adhiniyam is a dying deliration mentioned? (a) Section 32 (b) Section 28 (c) Section 26 (d) None of the above.” 5. The contention of the petitioner is that the question pertains to the provision containing Dying Declaration. 6. In Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872, the provision of dying declaration is found in Section 32 , whereas in Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, the new legislation of the year 2023, the provision is contained in Section 26 . Both the options were given in the multiple answers provided from where an applicant had to choose. The Hindi and Assamese translation of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT also is Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. 7. Thus, it is contended by the petitioner that without specifying the year of enactment of the statute, the question became vague and a candidate could have understood the question as Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 or Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. The petitioner answered considering the question to be from Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 and marked Section 32 [Option (a)] as the correct option. The petitioner answered considering the question to be from Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 and marked Section 32 [Option (a)] as the correct option. It has also been submitted that in the syllabus for the Preliminary Examination, both, the Indian Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 was included. Thus there was ample confusion in the matter for which a candidate ought not to be subjected to any disadvantage. 8. That apart, Dr. Saraf has argued that when the model answer key was published indicating that the question entailed the answer from the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 only, an objection was raised by the petitioner but the same was ignored without any reason. It is, therefore, argued that the Question No.97 was vague and, therefore, both the answers, namely, Option (a) [ Section 32 ] and Option (c) [ Section 26 ], have to be treated as correct answer. 9. Mr. Mahanta, learned senior Advocate for the High Court does not dispute this proposition. 10. Courts normally do not interfere in the evaluation of the question papers or with the provided answer keys considering the fact that such answers are provided by the experts and unless it is shown to be palpably incorrect or ambiguous, the same should not be interfered with. 11. But in the case at hand, a “hands-off” approach would not be advisable as such vague question would have led many candidates in believing that the question pertains to Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. 12. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Mahanta sought instructions from the Centralized Committee for Evaluation and informed this Court that 3(three) other candidates hailing from Unreserved Category had marked correct answer according to them, i.e. Option (a), considering the question to be from the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 and not from the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. In a sealed envelope, the roll numbers of such 3(three) other candidates have also been provided to this Court during the course of hearing. 13. Before directing for re-computation of the marks of such candidates, now identified, hailing from Unreserved Category, on account of one question being vague for which two of the optional answers were correct, we need to briefly state the law in that regard. 14. A three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University -Vs- Samir Gupta & Ors. 13. Before directing for re-computation of the marks of such candidates, now identified, hailing from Unreserved Category, on account of one question being vague for which two of the optional answers were correct, we need to briefly state the law in that regard. 14. A three Judges Bench of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University -Vs- Samir Gupta & Ors. :: (1983) 4 SCC 309 had considered a case where challenge was made to the key answers supplied by the paper setter in an objective type test for admission in medical courses. The jurisdictional High Court had accepted the challenge to different questions, but the Supreme Court reversed that decision. According to the Supreme Court, such findings by a Court of law would greatly affect the student community. It was thus held that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is demonstrated to be wrong. The key answers 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. (emphasis supplied) 15. Following the afore-noted judgment in Kanpur University (supra), the Supreme Court in Manish Ujwal & Ors. -Vs- Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors. :: (2005) 13 SCC 744 found that in case of incorrect key answers, it would be unfair to penalize the students for giving a correct answer. The High Court in that case had expressed doubt whether it could be said with certainty that the answers to the questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect. The Supreme Court did not approve of this, especially, when the key answers were found to be palpably and demonstrably erroneous. 16. In Guru Nanak Dev University -Vs- Saumil Garg & Ors. :: (2005) 13 SCC 749 , the Supreme Court had directed the University to re-evaluate the answer of 8(eight) questions with reference to key answers provided by CBSC. 17. In Rajesh Kumar & Ors. -Vs- State of Bihar & Ors. 16. In Guru Nanak Dev University -Vs- Saumil Garg & Ors. :: (2005) 13 SCC 749 , the Supreme Court had directed the University to re-evaluate the answer of 8(eight) questions with reference to key answers provided by CBSC. 17. In Rajesh Kumar & Ors. -Vs- State of Bihar & Ors. :: (2013) 4 SCC 690 , the Supreme Court was of the view that given the nature of the defect in the answer key, the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of script was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re- evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, in the opinion of the Supreme Court, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission, especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud, etc. Re-evaluation was considered to be a better option. 18. In Rishal & Ors. -Vs- Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. :: (2018) 8 SCC 81 , it was observed that the key answers prepared by the paper setters or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations. The publication of key answers is a step to achieve transparency and give an opportunity to the candidates to assess the correctness of the answers. An opportunity to file objections against the key answers uploaded by the examining body is a step to achieve fairness and perfection in that process. In that case, the objections to the key answers are required to be examined by the experts and thereafter corrective measures, if any, should be taken by the examining body. However, in Rishal (supra), the Supreme Court ultimately directed the Rajasthan Public Service Commission to revise the result of all candidates, including the appellants therein, on the basis of the report given by the Expert Committee to which the questions were sent and to publish the entire revised result. 19. Similarly, in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. :: (2018) 2 SCC 357 , it was ruled that the Courts should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption and in the event of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidates. 20. 19. Similarly, in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. :: (2018) 2 SCC 357 , it was ruled that the Courts should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption and in the event of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidates. 20. We have referred to this judgment for the reason that in this case, it was further held that if an error is committed by the examination authority, it is given that the complete body of candidates suffers but then , the entire examination process ought not to be derailed. The safest course in such a situation is to exclude the suspect or offending question. 21. From all these decisions, it can be gleaned that the Supreme Court does not prescribe a “hands-off” approach in all circumstances. There could be interference but subject to the caveat that there should be no questioning of key answers with respect to its correctness on the basis of deductions and inferential logic. Inference can only be made if the answer is palpably wrong, admitting of no other opinion except the incorrectness of it. 22. In the case at hand, there is no dispute that the Question No.97 was vague because of not mentioning the year of the enactment of the statute. Even at the cost of repetition, it is stated that the provision of dying declaration is available in Section 32 and Section 26 of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 and the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, respectively. Both the Sections were provided in the optional answers. It is thus beyond cavil that any candidate would have taken that question to either mean Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872 or Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. 23. Had one of the statutes not been in the syllabus, there could have been some justification of treating that question to be from Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023. The official Assamese translation of the Indian EVIDENCE ACT is Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam. 24. In such a situation, not mentioning the year of the enactment has made Question No.97 very vague, entitling a candidate and rightly so, to chose any one of the two correct options. The petitioner had opted for answering the question considering it to be from the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. 25. As informed to this Court by Mr. 24. In such a situation, not mentioning the year of the enactment has made Question No.97 very vague, entitling a candidate and rightly so, to chose any one of the two correct options. The petitioner had opted for answering the question considering it to be from the Indian EVIDENCE ACT , 1872. 25. As informed to this Court by Mr. Mahanta, learned Senior Advocate for the High Court that there will be only 3(three) other candidates, who would, if marked affirmatively for Question No.97, would cross the threshold stage of 75 marks. 26. Thus, we are of the considered view that the marks of the petitioner and 3(three) of the other identified candidates be re-computed and if they cross the threshold stage, which they would if 1(one) mark each is awarded to them, they be declared successful and be permitted to appear in the Mains Examination. 27. We order accordingly. 28. Necessary communication in that regard shall be made by the Examining Body, which in this case is the High Court, informing the 3(three) other candidates, apart from the petitioner, about their having passed the examination. We repeat that all these 4(four) candidates, including the petitioner, belong to the Unreserved Category and, therefore, are sailing in the same boat. 29. With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed off.