As per case facts, the petitioner applied for an Assistant Foreman Trainee (Electrical) post, appeared for the written examination, and later found that the final answer key released by the ... respondent company had altered correct options for four questions (Q.No. 26, 27, 63, 64) from the preliminary key, and their objection for one question (Q.No. 65) was not considered. The petitioner contended that if additional marks for these questions were counted, they would rank higher and secure a reserved post. The question arose whether the respondent's action was illegal and arbitrary, warranting court intervention to re-evaluate the questions through another expert committee. Finally, the High Court observed that a duly constituted Subject Expert Committee had thoroughly examined all objections, making necessary corrections based on relevant literature. Citing Supreme Court precedents, the High Court emphasized judicial restraint in academic matters and found no patent, glaring, or material errors to warrant interference, thus dismissing the Writ Petition. The petitioner, however, may seek relevant information from the competent authority.