1. Respondents issued a notification No. 19-PSC (DR-P) of 2012 dated 26th March, 2012 and invited the applications from eligible candidates for the post of Veterinary Assistant Surgeons. It was decided to have a screening test and merit list was declared vide notification dated 11th June, 2012. The cut off merit for open merit category was 94. The petitioners having secured less than 94 points were not called for interview, constraining them to lay a motion before the respondents in terms of Right to Information Act and sought their answer papers and key. It is contended that wrong keys were provided in "B" series paper to questions Nos. 36,59,73,117 and 120. Writ petitioners have referred to various text books to show that the answers provided by them to the questions in dispute are correct and respondents have applied wrong key and because of such application of wrong key, they have been shown the door and excluded from the selection process. 2. The three writ petitions bearing SWP Nos. 1358/2012, 1386/2012 and 1437/2012 were admitted on 10th July, 2012, 12th July, 2012 and 19th July, 2012 respectively. Notice was issued to respondents for filing reply and respondent No. 1 was directed to constitute a committee of experts to examine the matter and place its opinion with the writ records, in order to ascertain the genuineness of the stand taken by either of the parties. 3. The other two connected writ petitions being SWP Nos. 1465/2012 and 1459/2012 are yet to be admitted. 4. Respondents have filed reply and contested the writ petitions. Reply filed in one of the writ petitions, on the statement of Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, has been treated so in all the writ petitions. 5. In the reply filed, it is specifically averred that in terms of the court directions, they have constituted the committee and committee examined the material of the writ records and also of the respondents and made a decision that only three questions are wrongly fed and the answers supplied by the petitioners at serial No. 67,117,120 are common in question booklet CNT. Thus committee held that out of eight disputed questions, the key of three questions was wrong while as key written to five questions is correct. Further it is stated that all the writ petitioners have not answered these questions 67,117 and 120 even in terms of correct key. Thus committee held that out of eight disputed questions, the key of three questions was wrong while as key written to five questions is correct. Further it is stated that all the writ petitioners have not answered these questions 67,117 and 120 even in terms of correct key. Therefore, deletion of these questions and allocating their marks to other questions containing the pro-rata basis in terms of Rule 12 of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005, for short as Rules, does not improve their results. It is apt to reproduce relevant para herein:- "The Committee was provided Question Booklet Series (B, C & D): Answer Keys (B, C & D); Copies of writ petitions. The Committee was of the opinion that Answer Key supplied by the paper setter and applied by the answering respondents while evaluating the response sheets are correct except the key answers for Question Numbers appearing in Question Booklet Series B at S. Nos. 67,117 & 120 and common in Question Booklet Series C & D. The right key answers for these questions was opined to be (b), (C) & (d). It may be worthwhile to submit that all the writ petitioners have not answered these questions correctly even in terms of corrected key, therefore, deletion of these questions and allocating their marks to other questions contained in the paper on prorate basis, in terms of Rule 12A of J&K Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005, does not improve the result of petitioners. Since rest of the questions, alleged by the petitioners to have wrong key answers, are opined to be correct by the Expert Committee possessing technical expertise and rich experience in the subject, constituted by foe Answering Respondents in compliance to the orders of this Hon'ble Court, it would not be appropriate to substitute views of such Expert committee and unsettle the already prepared result." 6. It is lastly prayed that writ petitions be dismissed. 7. Except question No. 67,117 and 120 of series B which are common in C and D series, where options are correct but key prepared is incorrect, the rest of the questions have been held to be correct with genuine keys. Thus the committee has concluded that in all the three series B, C and D, the key for three questions was wrong. 8. Mr. Thus the committee has concluded that in all the three series B, C and D, the key for three questions was wrong. 8. Mr. Azhar stated that litigations cause considerable delay and in terms of Rule 12 of the Rules, they be directed to delete these questions being common in series C and D also and allot marks of those questions on prorate basis. 9. Learned counsel for petitioners stated at Bar that all the eight questions are wrong, therefore, not only three but all the eight questions require to be deleted. 10. The committee was constituted in terms of the orders of the court and they have given their findings which have been produced in sealed cover by Mr. Azhar, which after opening has been resealed. 11. It is beaten law of the land that courts have to honour the opinion of the experts and in this case experts have examined the matter and given their finding. 12. The Apex Court in a case titled as Pankaj Sharma and ors v. State reported as 2008 (4) SCC 273 : 2010 (5) JKJ SC-155 held that the decision of Public Service Commission in deleting the defective questions or wrong questions and to allot those marks on pro-rata basis and to call the persons for interview if a candidates gets in after getting additional marks on pro-rata basis was legal one. It is apt to reproduce Para 50 of the judgment herein: - "50. But there is an additional factor also which supports this view. It is clear from the fact that after the receipt of the complaints, the Commission had issued press note on 6.7.2005 and assured the candidates that the Commission would look into the matter and no injustice would be caused to them. The Commission also obtained expert advice and thereafter suo motu decided to delete certain questions by allotting those marks pro rata to remaining questions. It is, therefore, clear that even according to the Commission, some action was necessary, after the examination was over." 13. The Apex Court in cases reported as 1983 (4) SCC 309 Para 20 and 35, 1984 SCC (2) 319 held that court can pass appropriate directions in appropriate cases in order to avoid the delay and to avoid recurrence of such lapses. 14. The argument made by Mr. The Apex Court in cases reported as 1983 (4) SCC 309 Para 20 and 35, 1984 SCC (2) 319 held that court can pass appropriate directions in appropriate cases in order to avoid the delay and to avoid recurrence of such lapses. 14. The argument made by Mr. Azhar appears to be plausible and even the petitioners have only sought conducting their interview. 15. In view of the involvement of large number of candidates who are not before the court, and in view of the fact it is not a final test, I deem it proper to direct the Commission to delete these three questions and distribute these marks on pro-rata basis to remaining questions and to redraw the merit list. It is made clear that in case by allotment of such marks, the petitioners come in cut off limit, they be called for interview. 16. This order is made only on the basis of equity and the fact that the selection process will otherwise get delayed. 17. On the above terms, all the writ petitions are allowed.