Judgment Govind Mathur, J.-By these petitions for writ a direction is sought by the petitioners to re-evaluate the answer sheets and also to prepare fresh merit list pertaining to Primary Teacher Examination 2004 conducted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission"). 2. Facts in brief are that the Commission under an advertisement dated 02.06.2004 invited applications from eligible desirous persons to appear in Primary Teacher Examination 2004 under Rajasthan Panchayati Raj Rules, 1996 for the purpose of appointment as Primary Teachers. By advertisement referred above the examination of 2004 was conducted against the existing vacancies in various districts of the State of Rajasthan. The examination was conducted on 12.09.2004. The result of the same was declared on 06.01.2005. On the same day the answer key was also published by the Commission. The question paper in the examination of 2004 was containing 100 questions, each carrying two marks. 3. Allegation of the petitioners is that out of 100 questions asked 11 questions were either having more than one correct answer or the answer accepted as correct by the Commission is wrong. It is also alleged by the petitioners that some of the questions asked are vague being not framed properly. Those questions which are in dispute are 11 in number and read as under:- Þ16 jktiwrkuk ds fdl jkt?kjkus uss iztke.My dks laj{k.k ns j[kk Fkk \ 1- tSlyesj 2- vyoj 3- t;iqj 4- >kykokM+ 38-; qt rkj dk xq.k D;k gksuk pkfg, \ ª1- mPp no.kkad 2- U; qu izfrjks/k q3- U;u rU;rk 4- mPp izfrjks/k (53) Which one of the following Methods is the oldest Method of Teaching English ? .(1) Dr. .(1) Dr. Wasts method (2) The substitution table method .(3) Bilingual method (4) Translation cum grammer method 57-ek/;fed Lrj ij vadxf .kr f k{k.k fof /k gS\ k;ks 1- izfxd fof /k 2- foys"k.k ,oa lays"k.k fof /k 3- vkxeu fuxeu fof/k 4- ;slHkh 58- fdl inkFkZ dk iz;ksx ok"ihdj.k djus ds fy, fk{kd dks mi;ksx esa ykuk pkfg,\ 1- dsjkslhu 2- Mhty 3- usFkk 4- isVªksy k;ks60- iztuk fof /k dh :ijs[kk loZizFke izLrqr dh Fkh\ 1- fdy isVªhd us 2- eks.Vsljh us 3- fLduj us 4- tkWu Mhoh us 64-Þi;kZoj.k og lc dqN gS tks fdlh O;fDr dks pkjksa vksj ls ?kjssgq, gS ,oa ml ij lh/kk izHkko Mkyrk gSAß ;g ifjHkk"kk fdlus nh\ 1- jksl 2- fuEoVZ 3- oqMoFkZ 4- fdyisVªhd 66- fiNMs ckydksa dh cqf )yfC/k gksrh gSA 1-100 lsvf /kd 2-80 ls 90 ds chp 3-70 ls de 4- buesa ls dksbZ ugha 67-fk{kk ess dk;Zjr laLFkkvksa dks fdl izdkj ds dk;Zdze vk;ksftr djus pkfg,\ ~"kKrk 1- lkekU; fk{kk 2- ikB;oLrq foks 3- O;olkf ;df k{kk 4- x`g&fuekZ.k 70- oSpkfjd fØ;k voLFkk dkSulh gS\ 1- tUe ls 2 o"kZ 2-2 o"kZ ls 7 o"kZ 3-7 o"kZ ls 12 o"kZ 4-12 o"kZ ls 15 o"kZ 91- vkfnoklh yksxksa esa tkx`fr iSnk djus ds fy, xksfoUn xq: fdl ftys ls lEcaf /kr gS\ 1- Mwaxjiqj 2- fpRrkSM+ 3- ckalokM+k 4- fljksgh The petitioners along with the writ petitions have placed on record the answer key issued by the commission and also some books to substantiate the fact that the answers accepted as correct by the Commission are either not correct or are correct with other correct answers also. This Court by order dated 02.03.2005 directed the Commission to get the answers of the questions pointed out by the petitioners checked by a competent committee. In pursuance of the directions given by this Court a committee was constituted by the Commission and the same submitted its report on 05.03.2005. The report of the committee was placed on record by the respondents on 14.03.2005. The committee in its report gave a finding that the answers given in the key published by the Commission are only correct answers, no question asked in the examination is carrying two meanings and the questions asked were properly framed. 4. The petitioners after receiving copy of the report submitted by the committee filed their objections to the findings given by the committee. 4. The petitioners after receiving copy of the report submitted by the committee filed their objections to the findings given by the committee. The petitioners while submitting objections to the report have stated that the findings given by the committee are vague being not specific and the committee was not consisting of experts of the subject concerned. The petitioners reiterated that 11 questions out of 100 questions asked suffer from a lacunae i.e., either they are having two correct answers or the answer given by the Commission is wrong or the questions were not framed properly. 5. This Court by order dated 02.03.2005 directed the Commission to get the answers of the questions pointed out by the petitioners examined by competent committee to the effect as to whether answers prescribed in the key are correct or wrong or the questions asked were not properly framed. The respondent commission immediately constituted a committee which met on 05.03.2005. The committee was consisting of seven persons viz. Dr. B.K. Sharma, Ex. Dean and Head of Department, Mathematics, MDS University, Ajmer; Dr. M.S. Ranawat, Principle (Retd.), DAV College, Ajmer; Dr. S.K. Srivastava, Lecturer, Department of History, Government College, Ajmer; Shri Shiv Kumar Sharma, Retired Vice Principal, SD Government College, Beawar; Shri Chhidan Singh, Reader, Institute of Advance Studies in Education, Ajmer; Dr. M.K. Sharma, Lecturer, Institute of Advance Studies in Education, Ajmer; and Dr. K.K. Sharma, Retired P.G. Principal, Opp. Medical Girls Hostel, Civil Lines, Ajmer. The above named seven members of the committee declared the answers given in the key published by the Commission as the only correct answers. The complete report which is answers and what was the basis for treating those answers as the only correct answers of the questions. 7. At the other hand the petitioners (in the case of Smt. Punam Sharma vs. RPSC & Ors., SB Civil Writ petition No. 630/2005) have given detailed justification to substantiate their allegations while submitting objections with regard to the report submitted by the committee. The petitioners have given the source on basis of which challenge is given to the answers treated correct by the Commission in the answer key. The petitioners categorically on basis of reference books have tried to prove that the answers accepted by the Commission as correct are either not correct or having more than one correct answer. The petitioners have given the source on basis of which challenge is given to the answers treated correct by the Commission in the answer key. The petitioners categorically on basis of reference books have tried to prove that the answers accepted by the Commission as correct are either not correct or having more than one correct answer. The details given by the petitioners with regard to questions in dispute are available on record as Annexure 14 along with the application dated 17.03.2005 8. From perusal of details given in Annexure 14 it is apparent that the petitioners are having sufficient material to create doubt about the correctness of the answers treated as correct by the Commission for the question in dispute. 9. State Public Service Commission is a constitutional body which is required to discharge constitutional obligations provided under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. A committee appointed by the Commission under the directions of this Court, therefore, is also required to discharge its duties most efficiently, effectively and with complete objectivity. The report given by the expert committee is distinguished from usual statement of facts. The report of experts must give all necessary details of the inquiry made by it. The report should be specific, reasoned and its findings should be substantiated by relevant facts, references, precedents etc. as the case may be. 10. In the present case what appears from the reading of the report dated 05.03.2005 is that an empty formality was made just with a view to comply with the directions given by the Court. In totality of facts, I am not at all satisfied with the findings given by the expert committee which met on 05.03.2005. The findings given by the expert committee lacking support by reasons. 11. The Commission is having a great constitutional responsibility to hold fair selection proceedings for the purpose of recruitment in public services. In working of the Commission there should be total transparency and no citizen of this country should feel that the Commission acts in casual or vague manner. Similarly, the committee of experts constituted to assist the Commission as well as to this Court for reaching at a just and proper decision is also required to act with all efficiency and objectivity. Such a committee should act in a responsible manner and its findings should be specific with sufficient reasons and justifications. 12. Similarly, the committee of experts constituted to assist the Commission as well as to this Court for reaching at a just and proper decision is also required to act with all efficiency and objectivity. Such a committee should act in a responsible manner and its findings should be specific with sufficient reasons and justifications. 12. I am not at all satisfied with the manner in which the committee has given its findings under the report dated 05.03.2005, therefore, I consider it in the interest of justice to direct the Commission to reconstitute a committee to examine the questions in dispute in accordance with the order dated 02.03.2005 afresh. The committee so constituted shall consider the allegations with regard to the questions in dispute on basis of reference books and give a detailed report with reasons for its findings within a period of three weeks from today. 13. I am sure the committee so constituted will make all necessary efforts to reach at specific conclusion with regard to the allegations levelled by the petitioners and also will provide sufficient assistance to the Court in adjudication of the dispute involved in these writ petitions. Put up on 2nd of June, 2005.