SLST Wrong Question: SSC Faced Criticism in High Court Over SLST Question Error Case Justice Questions Experts

SLST Question Error: Several cases regarding irregularities in education recruitment in the state are already sub-judice. Amidst this, the School Service Commission (SSC) has once again faced tough questioning in the Calcutta High Court regarding a case of erroneous questions in the 2nd SLST exam of 2025. During the hearing, Justice Amrita Sinha expressed strong displeasure over the role of the commission and, in particular, the reliability of their Expert Committee.

While the hearing was underway in the bench of Justice Amrita Sinha at the Calcutta High Court, the commission’s lawyer had to face several uncomfortable questions. The Justice clearly observed that if the experts themselves cannot reach a correct decision, how will the examinees or the court understand which answer is correct?

Answer Key Confusion and Case Background

The origin of this case lies in the confusion regarding the Answer Key published by the SSC. This complication has arisen in the results of the teacher recruitment examination for classes XI-XII and IX-X. According to the allegations of the petitioners:

• Initially, in the answer key published by the SSC, option ‘D’ was accepted as the correct answer for a specific question.
• Subsequently, when the final answer key was published, it was observed that the commission had changed its stance.
• In the final answer key, excluding the previous option ‘D’, options ‘B’ and ‘C’ were declared as correct.

Due to this change of answers by the SSC, confusion spread among the examinees, and they approached the court. Their claim is that changing the answer suddenly without any specific reason or notice has harmed many deserving candidates.

Arguments in Court

During the hearing of the case in Justice Amrita Sinha’s bench, lawyers from both the petitioners’ and the commission’s sides presented their arguments.

• Petitioner’s Argument: The lawyer for the petitioners stated that they had initially accepted option ‘D’ as the correct answer following SSC’s guidelines. But the commission suddenly changed the answer in the final answer key without giving any correction window or opportunity, which is undesirable.
• Commission’s Argument: On the other hand, senior lawyer Kalyan Banerjee argued on behalf of the SSC. He informed the court that although an answer was considered at the primary stage, the final answer key was changed based on the opinion of the commission’s Expert Committee later. This was not an arbitrary decision but based on expert opinion.

Justice’s Observation and Questions on Expert Committee

After hearing both sides, Justice Sinha raised questions about the efficiency and consistency of the commission’s Expert Committee. She commented on how the same Expert Committee once calls an answer correct and then later accepts another answer by calling the previous one wrong. The Justice remarked, “You yourselves are not in a fixed position. If the experts cannot take a decision, how will we understand which one is correct?”

The Justice further added that if different professors or experts say different things, it is natural for confusion to arise. It is not baseless to question the transparency of the commission in this regard.

Court’s Directions to the Commission

At the end of the hearing, the court sought a detailed explanation from the SSC on this matter. Several directions have been given for the future of the case and the interest of the examinees:

1. Submission of Affidavit: The court has ordered the SSC to submit an affidavit explaining in detail why and how this change of answer was made.
2. Cut-off Marks Context: The SSC’s lawyer appealed that only those who have crossed the cut-off marks should have the right to challenge. The Justice mentioned this point in her order.
3. Marks Awarding and Verification: The court clarified that the verification or interview process of the petitioners should not be hampered in any way. If the petitioners’ claims are proven correct in the end, they will receive the due marks.

Currently, the case is sub-judice, and the turn of this case depends on what the commission states in their affidavit in the next hearing. However, the Justice has made it clear that the commission will have to accept whatever the final findings of the court are in this case.