JUDGMENT 1. In all these five writ applications the petitioners have assailed the result of Graduate Level Combined (Main Examination) 2010 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Main Examination') in respect of Advertisement No. 110/2010 whereby and whereunder 25792 candidates have been declared successful by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as "the Commission") for being considered for their appointment on 3285 Class-III graduate level posts under the State Government. By way of consequential reliefs, they have also prayed for restraining the official respondents either from proceeding for counseling of aforesaid 25792 successful candidates or issuing appointment letters to them against 3285 Class-III posts. A further direction has also been sought by them for commanding the Commission to conduct the Main Examination afresh on the basis of earlier result of the preliminary test conducted by the Commission wherein only 16425 candidates were declared successful for appearing in the Main Examination. In addition to the aforementioned common prayer in all the writ applications, a separate prayer has also been made only in C.W.J.C. No.3640/2013, which incidentally is the main case wherein all the pleadings have been filed by all the parties, that this Court should direct for holding an enquiry by an independent agency, namely, Central Bureau of Investigation (C.B.I.) in the entire selection process undertaken by the Commission in respect of the aforementioned Advertisement No. 110/2010 pertaining to Graduate Level Combined Competitive Examination. 2. The facts which would be sufficient to be noticed for disposal of all these writ applications lie in a very narrow compass. The Commission on 18.6.2010 had issued an advertisement notifying l569 vacancies of Graduate Level Post in various departments of the State Government and the last date for filing application was 26.7.2010. The Commission on receipt of 3,85,799 applications and after their screening had conducted a preliminary written test on 18.12.2011 in which 253795 candidates had appeared at various centres all over Bihar. The result of the aforesaid preliminary test was published by the Commission on 12.4.2012 wherein 16425 candidates were declared successful for appearing in the Main Examination. 3. The Commission on receipt of 3,85,799 applications and after their screening had conducted a preliminary written test on 18.12.2011 in which 253795 candidates had appeared at various centres all over Bihar. The result of the aforesaid preliminary test was published by the Commission on 12.4.2012 wherein 16425 candidates were declared successful for appearing in the Main Examination. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that in the meantime, the police had registered Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 23/2012 dated 20.10.2012 for offences under Sections 420, 468, 472, 120B of the Indian Penal Code disclosing that the miscreants had tampered the answer sheets (OMR sheets) after entering in the office and strong room of the Commission relating to the different examinations including that of Junior Engineers, Auditors, Secretariat Assistants (i.e. present selection). In this regard the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3640/2013 have made detailed averments and have referred to press release dated 21.10.2012 issued by the Chairman of the Commission assuring to cancel the result of any examination conducted by the Commission if the allegation of tampering the answer sheets in the aforesaid criminal case was found to be true. It has however been alleged that the officials of the Commission including its Chairman did not extend the necessary co-operation in investigation of the aforementioned police case, Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 23/2012 and only due to that the police could not properly investigate the interpolation in the OMR sheets of the present examinations. 4. From the pleadings it is also clear that a batch of writ applications, namely, C.W.J.C. No. 10268/2012, CW.J.C. No. 10683/2012, C.W.J.C. No.12209/2012, C.W.J.C. No. 12506/2012, CW.J.C. No. 14078/2012 and C.W.J.C. No. 19678/2012 were filed for cancellation of the result of the aforesaid preliminary test dated 12.4.2012 wherein also a prayer was made for registering a First Information Report in respect of the criminal misconduct committed by the authorities of the Commission in the tampering of answer sheets of the preliminary examination and for its being investigated by the C.B.I. and those writ petitions were disposed of by a common order dated 30.10.2012 without interfering with the result of the preliminary test examination and/or giving any direction for lodging of the F.I.R. and the investigation by the C.B.I. as with regard to the aforesaid alleged criminal misconduct committed by the authorities of the Commission. 5. 5. The Commission, however, after disposal of the aforesaid writ applications challenging the result of preliminary test, had issued a revised fresh result of preliminary test on 28.12.2012 declaring 27,289 candidates successful in Graduate Level Preliminary Test for 3285 vacancies in terms of Advertisement No. 110/2010 and had notified the date of 27.1.2013 for holding the Main Examination. The petitioners have also stated that a notice was published by the Commission on 25.1.2013 that the question paper and the model key answer of the said Main Examination would be displayed on the Website of the Commission after 9 P.M. on 29.1.2013 and any objection to the model answer could be submitted by the candidates in respect of any infirmity in the question paper and the model answer by 5 P.M. on 30.1.2013. The Main Examination therefore was held on 27.1.2013 and the Commission after holding the Main Examination in view of the aforesaid notice had invited objection to the model answers published on its Website on 28.1.2013 and after considering all such objections of the examinees, the Commission had declared the impugned final result on 6.2.2013 whereby and whereunder 25792 out of 27289 candidates were declared to be successful for being recommended for appointment against 3285 advertised posts. 6. Learned counsel for the petitioners while assailing the aforesaid result of the Main Examination in these writ petitions, have raised the following pleas:- (i) Bihar Staff Selection Commission Rules, 2003 and Bihar Staff Selection Commission Conduct of Examination Rules, 2010 framed by the State Government and not only contrary to the provisions of Bihar Staff Selection Commission Act 2002 but they in fact do away with the very concept of autonomy as well as power and functions vested in Bihar Staff Selection Commission and the decision of the State Government in its Resolution dated 25.3.2010 authorising the Commission to take. assistance from Bihar State Combined Admission Competitive Examination Board, hereinafter referred to as the Board, for conducting• the Graduate Level Main Examination in hand and the resultant action of the Commission of surrendering its entire power and function to the Board in respect of conducting the Main Examination as well as evaluation of answer sheets (OMR Sheets) and declaration of the impugned result by itself had vitiated the entire process of selection, (ii) The impugned result of the Main Examination cannot and in fact does not inspire confidence in view of the findings of police which while conducting the investigation of Economic Offence Case No. 23 of 2012 had arrived at a prima facie conclusion that OMR Sheets of several examinations conducted by the Commission including the present Graduate Level Main Examination were tampered and interpolated and in fact when the Commission had also not co-operated with the investigation leading to release of the accused persons on bail by taking benefit of Section 167(2) Cr.P.C., the complicity of the officers and employees of the Commission in tampering the answer sheets of the present Main Examination cannot be ruled out. (iii) The Commission having conducted the preliminary test for 1569 advertised posts could not expanded the zone of consideration by declaring the result of 27289 candidates as successful for their appearing in the Main Examination for 3285 posts specially when in the Advertisement No.110/2010 there was a clear stipulation that candidates only upto five times of the total vacancies could be screened in; preliminary test for appearing in the Main Examination. (iv) There being a large number of defective questions and wrong answers in the multiple choice objective test conducted by the Commission in the Main Examination has vitiated the entire result specially when there was a provision for negative marking for the wrong answers. (v) The failure on the part of the Commission to declare the result of Main Examination post-wise and category-wise has even otherwise made the impugned result vulnerable inasmuch as it is contrary to the spirit of the terms and conditions of Advertisement No. 110 of 2010. 7. Per Contra, Mr. (v) The failure on the part of the Commission to declare the result of Main Examination post-wise and category-wise has even otherwise made the impugned result vulnerable inasmuch as it is contrary to the spirit of the terms and conditions of Advertisement No. 110 of 2010. 7. Per Contra, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission as with regard to the aforesaid five pleas, has submitted that though it is, true that when the advertisement was issued by the Commission on 18.6.2010 only 1569 vacancies were included but then in the advertisement itself it was clearly mentioned that such vacancies could be varied, either increased or decreased, in view of any subsequent requisition made by the State Government, prior to holding of the Main Examination. In this regard he has also invited attention of this Court towards the notice issued by the Commission on 7.5.2012 wherein all the candidates much before holding the Main Examination on 27.1.2013 had been informed that the number of vacancies had been increased from 1569 to 3285 and as such no illegality can be said to have been committed in declaration of the impugned result on this score. 8. As with regard to increase in number of candidates declared successful in the preliminary test from 16425 approximately to 27289 it has been explained by Mr. Singh that the same was done not only on account of increase of number of posts from 1569 to 3285 but also on account of certain oral observations made by this Court in course of hearing of aforesaid batch of writ petitions filed against the result of preliminary test. He has further submitted that in any event the petitioners being successful candidates of such preliminary test examination, who had also appeared in the Main Examination, cannot be permitted to challenge the result of the preliminary test on this score especially when the validity of the same was upheld by this Court in the judgment dated 30.10.2012 in C.W.C.J. No. 10268/2012 and its analogous cases. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Singh has also submitted that the criticism of the petitioners with regard to the defect in question and answers also have no basis, inasmuch as not only the Commission had maintained a complete transparency in this regard but had also invited objection before declaration of result by publishing the question and the model answer on its Website and also by taking into consideration the objections of the candidates by referring them to a set of experts. In this regard he has referred to the pleadings in the counter affidavit showing that based on such opinion of the experts changes were made in answers of 13 out 150 questions and only on the basis of such revised model key answer the evaluation of OMR answer sheets of all the candidates including the petitioners were made leading to the declaration of the impugned result by the Commission. 10. In the next limb of submission Mr. Singh had also explained that the Commission had only taken assistance of a governmental agency namely the Board because such agency had not only the infrastructure and manpower but had also vast experience of conducting open competitive examination for admission in the Medical Colleges, Engineering Colleges and other technical institutions. In this regard he had also referred to the pleadings to show that when the Commission was facing an uphill task of evaluating the answer sheets of more than two and half lacs candidates appearing in the preliminary test and again around 27000 candidates in the Main Examination, its taking assistance from the Board, an expert agency cannot be faulted either on fact or in law specially when it had been duly authorised and permitted by the State Government. 11. Proceeding further learned Senior Counsel for the Commission on the basis of materials on record had sought to impress that the criminal case and the findings of the police in Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 23/2012 in no way would vitiate the impugned result of the Main Examination inasmuch as 1he answer sheets i.e. OMR sheets, were already entrusted to the Board, the specialized agency, and were never kept in the strong room in the office of the Commission about whom only the police in course of investigation had collected suspicious circumstances leading to its prima facie conclusion of interpolation of answer sheet (OMR sheets) that too in relation to some other competitive examinations. 12. 12. Finally, Mr. Singh had also explained that the consolidated result of 25792 candidates without specifying category and posts in no way could be held to be bad because all the 3285 posts were graduate level posts on which final recommendation could be made only after allowing the successful candidates to exercise their option based on merit-cum choice in the process of counselling. 13. Before this Court would go to examine aforesaid rival submissions, it would be significant to note here that a numbf!1 of intervention applications were filed by the successful candidates whose impugned results were published on 6.2.2013 and have been assailed in these writ petitions. As such intervention applications were allowed by this Court and they have been impleaded as Respondents 9 to 30 in C.W.J.C. No. 3640 of 2013 keeping in view that since the successful candidates could be adversely affected by the outcome of these writ petitions, some of them should also be heard in the representative capacity in view of law laid down by the Apex Court in the cases of Col. D.D. Joshi & Ors. Vs. Union of India & Ors. reported in (1983)2 SCC 235 , B. Prabhakar Rao & Ors. Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh & Ors. reported in 1985 (Suppl.) SCC 432 and Union of India Vs. M.P. Singh reported in 1990 (Suppl.) SCC 701. In these cases, the Apex Court has laid down the law that if a number of persons are likely to be affected by an order which may be passed in a petition, it is not necessary that all of, them must be joined as a party respondent and it would be sufficient if some of them are only joined as a representative of the entire group, if the interest of the persons who are not before the court and not joined as a party are identical, with those who are before court and can well be representated by the persons joined as party. 14. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel, having appeared on behalf of some of such intervenor Respondents 9 to 30 has not only referred to and relied on the counter affidavits and supplementary counter affidavit filed by them but has also made his submissions on all the aforesaid issues involved in this case. According to Mr. 14. Mr. Rajendra Prasad Singh, learned Senior Counsel, having appeared on behalf of some of such intervenor Respondents 9 to 30 has not only referred to and relied on the counter affidavits and supplementary counter affidavit filed by them but has also made his submissions on all the aforesaid issues involved in this case. According to Mr. Singh there was no anomaly of any nature whatsoever so as to wholly vitiate the result of the Main Examination and this Court should therefore dismiss all these writ applications. 15. The first plea on which much stress was given by Mr. Chittaranjan Sinha, learned Senior Counsel appearing in C.W.J.C. No.5103/2013, would necessarily involve a brief review of the power and function of the Commission. It is not in doubt that by an Act of Legislature, namely, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Act, 2002, hereinafter referred to as the Act the Commission was constituted for conducting the selection on Class-III posts. Under Section 3 of the Act there is a provision for constitution of the Commission and Section 4 of the Act lays down the tenure of the Chairman and the Members of the Commission. Section 5 of the Act empowers the Commission to make recommendation for appointment of Class III post in the offices of the State Government and the Regional Offices as against all the services of general, technical and non-technical-cadres. Section 6 of the Act provides for appointment and the terms and conditions of the officers and employee of the Commission as prescribed under the Rules. Section 7 of the Act fixes the Headquarter of the Commission at Patna and the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department of the State Government to be the administrative department of the Commission. Section 8 of the Act empowers the Commission to lay down the procedure of selection for different services/post with the prior approval of the State Government. Under Section 9 of the Act the Chairman of the Commission has been vested 'with the administrative and financial powers and he has also been authorized to entrust the duty of the Examination Controller to one of the Member while work of the Administrative Branch to other Member. Under Section 9 of the Act the Chairman of the Commission has been vested 'with the administrative and financial powers and he has also been authorized to entrust the duty of the Examination Controller to one of the Member while work of the Administrative Branch to other Member. Section 10 of the Act relates to transfer of pending selection from the Bihar Public Service Commission authorizing the Commission to take up such selection where' advertisements were not issued by the Bihar Public Service Commission on the date of the Act coming into force i.e. 24th April, 2002. Under Section 11 of the Act the entire financial expenditure in the functioning of the office and working of the Commission is to be borne by the State Government and the Commission has also been authorized to receive fees for conduction, selection/examination from the candidates which has to be however deposited in the Treasury of the State Government. Section 12 of the Act vests power of framing Rules/Regulation for giving effect to the provisions of the Act in the State Government and the Commission with the prior approval of the State Government has also been delegated the power for framing Rules for publication of advertisement, conducting of the written examination, publication of the result and conducting of interview/viva voce etc. 16. Thus, a bare reading of the aforementioned provisions of the Act bringing the Commission into existence for making recommendation on Class-III post in the offices of the State Government and its Regional offices will leave nothing for speculation that the Commission in reality is an adjunct of the State Government and is under full direct control of the State Government. The status of the Commission, therefore, cannot be one as has been in the case of Bihar Public Service Commission in terms of Articles 315 to 320 of the Constitution of India. In nutshell it is the State Government which has, instead of making its own selection for appointment on Class-III post in the offices of the State Government and its Regional (field) offices, created a body i.e. the Commission, which of course has been authorized to conduct selection but again totally under control of the State Government. In nutshell it is the State Government which has, instead of making its own selection for appointment on Class-III post in the offices of the State Government and its Regional (field) offices, created a body i.e. the Commission, which of course has been authorized to conduct selection but again totally under control of the State Government. As a matter of fact when the State Government in the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms had framed Rules on 31st May, 2003 laying down the Bihar Staff Selection Commission Rules, and had specified the powers and function of the Commission vide Schedule-II and those of the Chairman of the Commission vide Schedule III. there would not be much left out for this Court to hold that the Commission in its functioning is in complete grip of the State Government. 17. Additionally, this Court would also find that when the State. Government in exercise of his power under Section 12(1) of 2002 Act had also framed Rules, namely, Bihar Staff Selection Commission Conduct Examination Rules, 2010, laying down manner of holding of selection including three examinations ordinarily every year separately for the post of Matriculation level. Intermediate level and Graduation level and has also specified such posts vide Schedules-I and II and has further prescribed the norms of examination to be conducted in two stages, namely. preliminary examination and Main Examination as also the subjects of both preliminary and Main Examination, no such autonomy was ever vested in the Commission which would put it at par with the Bihar Public Service Commission as envisaged under Articles 315 to 320 of the Constitution of India. In fact the association of the Department of General Administration in preparation of the draft merit list as also final recommendation to be sent to the concerned department would by itself be sufficient to indicate the deep and pervasive control of the State Government on the Commission especially when in Rule 16 of 2010 Rules it has also been laid down that the Commission shall have liberty to take its decision on the standard and procedure of examination keeping in view the norms laid down under 2010 Rules. 18. Thus, in view of the provisions made in 2002 Act, followed by the Rules framed by the State Government in the year 2003 and 2010 this Court. 18. Thus, in view of the provisions made in 2002 Act, followed by the Rules framed by the State Government in the year 2003 and 2010 this Court. will have no difficulty in holding that the resolution issued by the Personnel and Administrative Reforms Department on 25.3.2010 authorizing the Commission to take help and assistance of Bihar Rajya Sanyukta Pravesh Pratiyogita Pariksha Parishad (Bihar State Combined Admission Competitive Examination Board) for conducting various examination and selection by the Commission cannot be said to be contrary to the provisions of the Act as would be more clear from reading of the resolution itself issued by the State Government on 25.3.2010 quoted hereinbelow:- Lka[;k&7@pŒiŒ 208@98&dkŒ 2742@fcgkj ljdkj dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx AA ldaYiAA fnŒ 25-3-10 fo”k; %& fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx }kjk yh tkuh okyh izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kkvks ds lapkyu gsrq fcgkj jkT; la;qDr izos’k izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk i”kZn dk lg;ksx fy, tkus ds lac/k esA Lukrd@bUVj@eSfVªd Lrj ds vjktif=r inks ij fu;qfDr gsrq fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx ijh{kk lapkyu fu;ekoyh] 2010 dk xBu dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx dh vf/klwpuk laŒ 2741 fnukad 25-3-2010 }kjk fd;k x;k gSA mlh dze es jkT; ljdkj us ;g fu.kZ; fy;k gS fd fcgkj deZpkjh vk;ksx lacf/kr ijh{kkvks ds lapkyu ds fy, vko’;drkuqlkj fcgkj jkT; la;qDr izos’k izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk i"kZn dk lg;ksx ys ldsaxs] ftlds fy, fcgkj jkT; la;qDr izos’k izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk i”kZn] iVuk dks izkf/kd`r fd;k tkrk gSA vkns’k & vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi dks fcgkj jkti= ds vlk/kkj.k vaad es tulk/kkj.k ds lwpukFkZ izdkf’kr fd;k tk,A 2- ;g Hkh vkns’k fn;k tkrk gS fd bl ladYi fd izfrfyfi fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx@fcgkj jkT; la;qDr izos’k izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk i”kZn] iVuk@lHkh foHkkx@lHkh foHkkxk/;{k ,oa vU; lHkh lacf/krks dks lwpuk ,oa vko’;d dkjZokbZ gsrq Hkst nh tk,A fcgkj jkT;iky ds vkns’k ls] gŒ@& 25-3-2010 ¼jktho ykspu½ ljdkj ds fo’ks”k lfpoA Kkikad&7@pŒiŒ&208@98@2742@iVuk] fnukad 25-3-2010 Izkfrfyfi&v/kh{kd] jktdh; eqnz.kky;] xqytkjckx] iVuk dks fcgkj jkti= ds vkxkeh vlk/kkj.k vad es izdk’kkukFkZ vxzlkfjrA muls vuqjks/k gS fd fcgkj jkti= dh 50 eqfnzr izfr;ka bl foHkkx dks miyC/k djk;h tk;A gŒ@& 25-3-2010 ¼jktho ykspu½ ljdkj ds fo’ks”k lfpoA Kkiakd&7@pŒiŒ&208@98@2742@iVuk] fnukad 25-3-10 izfrfyfi&eq[;ea=h lfpoky;@lfpo] fcgkj yksd lsok vk;ksx@lfpo] fcgkj jkT; la;qDr izos’k izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk i”kZn@lfpo] fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx] iVuk ,oa iz/kku lfpo] dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx ds iz/kku vkIr lfpo dks lwpukFkZ ,oa vko’;d dkjZokbZ gsrq izsf”krA gŒ@& 25-3-10 ¼jktho ykspu½ ljdkj ds fo’ks”k lfpoA \ 19. Having regard to the aforementioned statutory provision of 2002 Act and the Department of Personnel and Administrative Reforms, now being renamed as Department of General Administration, being the controlling administrative department of the Commission, this Court is not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Sinha that the Conduct of Examination Rules, 2010 framed by the State Government encroaches upon the power and autonomy of the Commission, inasmuch as this Court does not find anything from 2002 Act which can be said to be contrary to the provision of 2003 Rules or 2010 Rules. 20. The reliance placed by Mr. Sinha on a judgment of the Apex Court in the case of A.P. Public Service Commission, Hyderabad & Anr. vs. B. Sarat Chandra & Ors. reported in (1990)2 SCC 669 is wholly misplaced, inasmuch as, what was held therein in relation to Andhra Pradesh Police Service Rules pertaining to the qualification of age was that the word 'selection' used therein cannot be understood in a narrower sense of final act of selecting the candidate with preparation of list for appointment. The Apex Court in that context had only held as follows:- "If the word 'selection' is understood in a sense meaning thereby only the final act of selecting candidates with preparation of the list for appointment, then the conclusion of the Tribunal may not be unjustified. But round phrases cannot give square answers. Before accepting that meaning, we must see the consequences, anomalies and uncertainties that it may lead to. The Tribunal in fact does not dispute that the process of selection begins with the issuance of advertisement and ends with the preparation of select list for appointment, Indeed, it consists of various steps like inviting applications, scrutiny of applications, rejection of defective applications or elimination of ineligible candidates, conducting examinations, calling for interview or viva voce and preparation of list of successful candidates for appointment. Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Public Service Commission is also indicative of all these steps. When such are the different steps in the process of selection, the minimum or 'maximum age for suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. Rule 3 of the Rules of Procedure of the Public Service Commission is also indicative of all these steps. When such are the different steps in the process of selection, the minimum or 'maximum age for suitability of a candidate for appointment cannot be allowed to depend upon any fluctuating or uncertain date. If the final stage of selection is delayed and more often it happens for various reasons, the candidates who are eligible on the date of application may find themselves eliminated at the final stage for no fault of theirs. The date to attain the minimum or maximum age 'must, therefore, be specific, and determinate as on a particular date for candidates to apply and for recruiting agency to scrutinise applications. It would be, therefore, unreasonable to construe the word selection only as the factum of preparation of the select list. Nothing, so bad would have been intended by the rule making authority." It is thus clear that actually the word 'selection' used in the aforementioned Rules which has been explained by the Apex Court in the judgment of B. Sarat Chandra (supra) and will have no relevance in the facts of this case. 21. That apart the submission of Mr. Sinha as with regard to the Commission abdicating its functioning on account of 'assistance' obtained from the Board has already been considered above and found to be permissible under the Act and the Rules and therefore, if the services of the Board were utilized for either storing of the answer sheets or its evaluation by the computers of the Board through the personnel of the Board that will make no difference so far it relates to the functioning of the Commission in respect of conducting the entire selection process. 22. The next submission of Mr. Sinha that in the name of assistance (Sahyog) the Commission could not have entrusted the entire work of holding the' Main Examination right from setting of the question to the evaluation of answer sheet also has to be also understood in the context that the Board is conducting such examination on a mass scale for entrance in the Engineering/Medical Colleges all over Bihar and has got infrastructure for conducting of the examination and publishing the result. Thus, if the Government in exercise of its power under 2010 Rules has taken a conscious decision by its resolution dated 25.3.2010 that the Commission can take assistance of the Board in conducting the examination and publishing the result no valid objection can be raised by the petitioners-candidates to the same. In fact from the counter affidavit filed by the Commission in C.W.J.C. No. 3740/2013 it is more than clear that the question booklet as also model key answer for holding the examination in question was prepared by the Commission from its own sources and after the examinations were conducted the OMR answer sheets were only evaluated with the help of the computers installed in the office of the Board. The evaluation of OMR sheet is a purely a mechanical exercise in which the answer sheets are to be fed into the computers and they get automatically evaluated on the basis of programmed model key correct answers. This part of exercise by the Board in rendering assistance to the Commission either in evaluation of the answer books of the preliminary test in which around 2.5 lacs candidates had appeared or even in the Main Examination again by evaluation of OMR Sheets was well within the delegated power to the Commission by the State Government in seeking assistance of the Board vide aforementioned resolution dated 25.3.2010. 23. Thus, the Main Examination conducted by the Commission in the present case cannot be said to be vitiated only because the assistance of the Board was obtained in storage or evaluation of the answer sheets or other allied works relating to declaration of the impugned result. 24. Once this Court, therefore, would hold that the assistance of the Board could have been very well taken by the Commission in holding such examination, the attack of Mr. 24. Once this Court, therefore, would hold that the assistance of the Board could have been very well taken by the Commission in holding such examination, the attack of Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners appearing in C.W.J.C. No. 3640/2013, that the result of the Main Examination was vitiated on account of mal-practice committed in the strong room of the Commission has to be also automatically rejected, inasmuch as it has come on record that after conducting of the Main Examination on 27.1.2013 the OMR answer sheets were handed over by the officials of the Commission to the Board for its evaluation and thus when they were not even kept in the strong room of the Commission there would be also no question of their interpolated in the office of the Commission. 25. In that view of. the matter, the result of the Main Examination of the Graduate level post cannot be said to be vitiated due to alleged mal-practice and interpolation in OMR answer sheets, especially when this Court on the basis of the affidavit filed by the I.G., Economic Offences, is satisfied that no material has been collected till date in the pending Economic Offence Case No.23/2012 to establish any mal-practice relating to OMR sheets of the Main Examination. In this regard this Court had made a specific query from the IG, Economic Offences, vide its order dated 26.2.2013 to file a clear affidavit as to whether Economic Offence Case No. 23/2012 also in any way involved relating to any mal-practice in the Graduate Level Examination Test, 2010 conducted by the Commission and therefore it would be also relevant and useful to quote paragraphs 12, 13 and 18 of the counter affidavit of I.G., Vigilance which reads as follows:- "12. That during the course of investigation of Economic Offences P.S. Case No. 23/2012, it was found that the answer sheets of the two examination namely 1. Junior Engineer Examination held on 30.9.12 and 2. Auditor Examination held on 7.10.12, were kept in the separate strong room of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College Campus, Patna. 13. That it was revealed by the officers of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, that answer sheets of the Junior Engineer Examination were already evaluated, regarding Auditor Examination the evaluation process had not yet started. Auditor Examination held on 7.10.12, were kept in the separate strong room of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College Campus, Patna. 13. That it was revealed by the officers of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, that answer sheets of the Junior Engineer Examination were already evaluated, regarding Auditor Examination the evaluation process had not yet started. On inspection with naked eye, it appeared that the seal of the door was tampered with, the seals (metal seal and paper seal) of the strong rooms were lifted and sent for expert's opinion to find out whether any tampering has been done with the seals. 18. That on the basis of investigation of Economic P.S. Case No.23/2012, the following facts would clear- A. That there are evidences showing that the strong room in which the original OMR answer sheets of the Auditor Examination (held on 7.10.12) were kept, was broken into before the process of the evaluation started. B. Original OMR answer sheets (as seen from scanned CD) of suspected examinees of Junior Engineer Examination held on 30.9.12, bore more blackened circles than the carbon copy of OMR answer sheets of candidates, which was seized by the police from the possession of accused. C. Answer sheets other than Auditor Examination and Junior Engineer Examination were not recovered or seized during investigation of Economic Offences P.S. Case No. 23/12." 26. The aforesaid uncontroverted statements of the I.G., Economic offences by themselves would go to show that the criminal case" Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 23/2012 did not relate to the present Main Examination which in fact was held on 27.1.2013 much after registration of Economic Offences P.S. Case No. 23/2012. It is true that in paragraph 35 of the same counter affidavit it has been stated that another Economic Offence P.S. Case No.3/2013 relating to Graduate Level Combined Main Examination, 2010 is said to have been registered but in paragraph 39 of the counter affidavit it has been again clearly mentioned that three named F.I.R. accused in their confession before the police had stated that the question paper of the Graduate Level Main Examination, 2010 could not be obtained by them though they had admitted their involvement in tampering of answer sheets of the Medical Entrance Examination. 27. 27. In view of the aforesaid authentic materials on record brought by the I.G., Economic Offences, this Court will also have no difficulty in holding that till date there is no reliable evidence on the basis of which it can be said that OMR sheets of the present Graduate Level Main Examination conducted by the Commission were in any way also changed or interpolated. In this regard the Commission also in paragraph 30 of the second supplementary counter affidavit !n C.W.J.C. No. 3640/2013 has categorically denied any tampering or changing of the answer sheets of the Main Examination in the following words: "30. That in so far as the allegation of mala fide in view of the pending criminal case is concerned, it is stated that the aforesaid criminal case and the allegations made therein has no nexus/connection with either the P.T. Examination conducted on 18.12.2011 or the Mains examination conducted on 27.1.2013 and its evaluation made thereafter inasmuch as the raid by S.T.F. leading to registration of Economic Offences P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012 dated 20.10.2012 was in relation to the Auditors Examination conducted by the Commission and the alleged place of occurrence was at the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, Veterinary College Campus where the strong room of the Commission at the aforesaid place was sought to be illegally opened in order to tamper with the OMR sheets kept in the strong room of the Commission whereas the present Graduate Level Examination was conducted by B.C.E.C.E. Board except the preparation of the question booklet. Even the OMR sheets of the P.T. examination were kept in the strong room of the B.C.E.C.E. Board situated at IAS Bhawan, Patna which admittedly had not been interfered or tampered with in any manner. Besides the said allegations are mere bald statements made by the writ. petitioners having no basis and has already been rejected by the learned Single Judge by his order dated 30.10.2013 passed in CWJC No. 10268 of 2012 and analogous cases. Apart from the above, the writ petitioners having been declared successful in the P.T. examination cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the validity of the results of the P.T. examination which even otherwise has not been impugned in the present writ application." 28. Apart from the above, the writ petitioners having been declared successful in the P.T. examination cannot be permitted to turn around and challenge the validity of the results of the P.T. examination which even otherwise has not been impugned in the present writ application." 28. In view of above, this Court will also have no difficulty in holding that the answer sheets of the present Main Examination Graduate Level Examination was not tampered so as to vitiate the entire impugned result. 29. Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 3640 of 2013 and Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners in CWJC No. 3740 of 2013 had however concentrated in their submissions on yet another aspect that the Commission having expanded the zone of consideration beyond five times as stipulated in the advertisement has committed such an error that now the whole Main Examination including the impugned result has become vitiated. In this regard, it has been explained by them that even if the number of vacancy which was increased from 1569 to 3285 from the stage of holding of preliminary test to Main Examination, the total number of candidates qualifying in the preliminary test in view of the specific terms set out in the advertisement limiting it to five times of total posts could not have exceeded beyond 16425 but the Commission, having declared 27289 candidates to be successful in the preliminary test who were allowed to appear in the Main Examination has acted contrary to the terms of advertisement which in turn has vitiated the entire result of the Main Examination wherein 25792 candidates have been declared successful for 3285 posts. 30. There would be no difficulty for this Court in rejecting the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners as with regard to their grievance of increase in number of posts from 1569 to 3285. 30. There would be no difficulty for this Court in rejecting the aforesaid submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners as with regard to their grievance of increase in number of posts from 1569 to 3285. It is true that in the advertisement dated 18.6.2010 the breakup of 1569 post was given but in the same advertisement it was clearly mentioned that the number of vacancies were subject to increase/decrease and in this regard the terms and conditions of the advertisement would by itself be a complete answer to the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners which reads as follows: ^^fcgkj deZPkkjh p;u vk;ksx] iksŒ&osVujh dk¡yst iVuk&14 Lukrd Lrjh; izFke izkjfEHkd la;qDr Izkfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk & 2010 foKkiu la[;k & 110@2010 vkosnu tek djus dh vafre frfFk 26-7-2010 dkfeZd ,oa iz’kklfud lq/kkj foHkkx] fcgkj ljdkj dh vf/klwpuk la[;k&7@pŒ iŒ&208@98 dkŒ@2741 fnukad 25-3-2010 }kjk Lukrd Lrjh; izFke la;qDr izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk&2010 es vk;ksftr djus gsrq lqalfpr dh xbZ lgefr ds dze es jkT; ljdkj dh fofHkUu lsokvks@laoxksZ@inks ds fy,s la;qDr izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk ds ek/;e ls dh tkus okyh fu;qfDr gsrq lacf/kr foHkkxks }kjk lalqfpr fjfDr;ks ds fo:n~/k Hkkjrh; ukxfjdks ls fofgr izi= es izkjfEHkd ijh{kk ds fy, vkosnu i= vkef=r fd;s tkrs gSA mEehnokj vgZrk vuqlkj fuEukafdr ‘kS{kf.kd ;ksX;rk rFkk fu/kkfjZr vk;q lhek ds varZxr] vkosnu i= lefiZr djsaxsA lcaf/kr foHkkxks ls izkIr v|ru fjfDr;k¡ fuEuor~ gS% izFke Lukrd Lrjh; izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk & 2010 gsrq fofHkUu inks dk izkIr vf/k;kpuk ds vuqlkj foHkkxkokj fooj.khA dze foHkkx in in osrueku U;wure vkj{k.kokj inks dh fLFkfr lŒ dk uke dk dksM ‘kS{kf.kd uke ;ksX;rk vuqŒ vuqŒ vR;aRk fiNM+k fi- oxZ lkekU; dqy tkfr tuŒ fi- oxZ oxZ dh tkfr efgyk 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 1- lkekU; lfpoky; 01 isaŒcSM 9300 Lukrd 166 10 186 124 31 517 1034 iz’kklu lgk;d] 34800++$xszM foHkkx] laoxZ isŒ 4600 fogkj jkT; Lrjh; 2- m|ksx m|ksx 02 isŒcsaM 9300& okf.kT;@ 13 01 14 10 02 41 81 foHkkx] foLrkj 34800$xzsM isŒ vFkZ’kkL=@ fcgkj inkf/kdkjh 4200 ¼5000 & xf.kr@ laoxZ jkT; 8000 iqjkuk½ laf[;dh es Lrjh; Lukrd U;wure izkIrkad 45 izfr’kr 3- m|ksx] duh; 03 isŒ cSM 9300& okf.kT;@ 03 & 04 02 01 10 20 foHkkx laf[;dh 34800$xzsM vFkZ’kkL=@ fcgkj lgk;d isŒ 4200 xf.kr@ laoxZ jkT; ¼5000 & laf[;dh es Lrjh; 8000 iqjkuk½ Lukrd U;wure izkIrkad 45 izfr’kr 4- [kk| ,oa vkiwfrZ 04 5000&8000 Lukrd 41 07 47 30 16 125 266 miHkksDrk fujh{kd] ¼vuqjhf{kr½ lja{k.k laoxZ jkT; foHkkx] Lrjh; fcgkj 5- vuqŒ iz[k.M 05 isŒcSM+ 9300& dyk@ 25 01 25 18 04 70 143 tkfr vuqŒ tkfr 34800$xzsM isŒ foKku@ ,oa vuqŒ ,oa vuqŒ 4200 ofk.kT; es tutkfr tutkfr Lukrd dY;k.k dY;k.k fMxhz foHkkx] inkf/kdkjh fcgkj laoxZ jkT; Lrjh; 6- Je Je dY;k.k 06 isŒcSM+&9300 Lukrd 01 01 & 01 & 02 05 lalk/ku inkf/kdkjh & 34800$ foHkkx] ¼i;Zos{kdh;½ xszM+ isŒ 4200 fcgkj laoxZ jkT; Lrjh; 7- Je efgyk lekt 07 isŒcSM+&5200 Lukrd 04 01 02 & 01 05 13 lalk/ku vk;ksftdk & 20200$ foHkkx] ¼dsoy xszM+ isŒ 2400 fcgkj efgykvks ds fy;s½ laoxZ jkT; Lrjh; 8- Je lakf[;dh 08 isŒcSM+&5200 xf.kr@ 01 01 02 02 & 01 07 lalk/ku lax.kd ] & 20200 laf[;dh es foHkkx] loaxZ jkT; xszM+ isŒ 1900 vFkZ’kkL= fcgkj Lrjh; fo”k; es Lukrd ;ksx 254 22 280 187 55 771 1569 mi;qZDr fjfDr;k¡ vkSicfaU/kd gS] tks ?kV&c< ldrh gSA eq[; ijh{kk ds iwoZ foHkkxks ls izkIr gksusokyh vU; inks dks Hkh bl ijh{kk es ‘kkfey fd;k tk ldsxk ftldh lwpuk eq[; ijh{kk ds fy, vkosnu i= izkIr djus ds iwoZ izdkf’kr dh tk,xhA^^ (underlining for emphasis) 31. From the underlined portion of the aforementioned extract of the advertisement it is absolutely clear that the Commission had reserved the right of either increasing or decreasing the number of posts and in this regard had also clarified that if further vacancies were requisitioned by the Department prior to holding of the Main Examination they could be included for selection in terms of the advertisement dated 18.6.2010. 32. 32. As a matter of fact the Commission had again issued a fresh Corrigendum on 7.5.2012 and had notified the increase of vacancy much before holding of the Main Examination, wherein it was stated as follows:- fcgkj] deZpkjh p;u vk;skx iksŒ&osVujh dk¡yst] iVuk & 14 foKkiu la[;k &110@2010 dh ¼ih-Vh-½ ijh{kk es mRrh.kZ ?kksf”kr vH;kfFkZ;ks ds fy, vko’;d lwpuk Kki la[;k&2057@vkŒ iVuk] fnukad 7-5-2012 Lukrd Lrjh; la;qDr izkjfEHkd izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk 2010] foKkiu la[;k 110@2010 ds vkyksd es vk;ksx }kjk fnukad 18-12-2011 dks vk;ksftr dh xbZ FkhA of.kZr foKkiu es fjfDr;ks dh dqy la[;k 1569 n’kkZbZ xbZ Fkh rFkk foKkiu es ;g Hkh vafdr Fkk fd inks dh fjfDr ?kV&c< ldrh gSA lkFk gh ;g Hkh Li”V fd;k x;k Fkk fd vU; foHkkxks ls fjfDr;k¡ izkIr gksus ij mls Hkh ‘kkfey fd;k tk ldsxkA fofHkUu foHkkxks ls fofHkUUk lsokvks@laoxksZ ds fy, vkSj fjfDr;k vk;ksx dks izkIr gqbZ gS] ftls iwoZ dh fjfDr;ks ds lkFk tksM+dj Lukrd Lrjh; ¼ih- Vh-½ ijh{kk dk ijh{kkQy vk;ksx }kjk izdkf’kr fd;k x;k gSA jkT; ljdkj ds vkj{k.k fu;eks ds vuqlkj izkIr dksfVokj fjfDr;ks dk fooj.k fuEu izdkj gSA ¼1½ vukjf{kr & 1571 ¼2½ vuqlwfpr tkfr & 521 ¼3½ vuqlwfpr tutkfr & 98 ¼4½ vR;ar fiNM+k oxZ & 615 ¼5½ fiNM+k oxZ & 351 ¼6½ fiNMs+ oxZ dh efgyk,¡ & 129] dqy fjfDr;k & 3285 2- mi;qZDr fjfDr;ks ds vkyksd es Lukrd Lrjh; la;qDr izkjfEHkd ijh{kk & 2010 dh ijh{kkQy vk;ksx }kjk izdkf’kr fd;k x;k gS] ftldh foLr`r lwpuk vk;ksx ds osclkbV http:/bssc.bih.nic.in ij miyC/k gSsA 3- Lukrd Lrjh; l;qaDr izkjfEHkd izfr;ksfxrk ijh{kk gsrq izdkf’kr foKkiu la[;k & 110@2010 dh dafMdk & 3 es izkjfEHkd ijh{kk es lQy vH;kfFkZ;ks }kjk eq[; ijh{kk gsrq vkosnu djus rFkk miyC/k inks ds fjfDr;ks ds vkyksd es p;u gsrq izkFkfedrk,¡ vk;ksx dks miyC/k djk;k tkuk vko’;d gSA 4- eq[; ijh{kk gsrq vkosnu≶&izkFkfedrks vk;ksx ds osclkbV ds ek/;e ls vH;fFkZ;ks ls vku¡ykbu izkIr fd;k tkuk gSA izkjfEHkd ijh{kk es lQy vH;FkhZ vk;ksx ds osclkbZV http:/bssc.bih.nic.in vku¡ykbu vkosnu≶&izkFkfedrk izi= Hkjsaxs ,os mldh ,d izfr osclkbV ls MkmuyksM djsaxs] fu/kkfjZr LFkku ij gLrk{kj vafdr djsxs vkSj vuqyXud & ^[k* es of.kZr dkxtkr dh Lo&vfHkizekf.kr Nk;kizfr ds lkFk vk;ksx dk;kZy; es vkosnu tek djus dh vafre frfFk 8-6-2012 dh la/;k 05-00 cts rd fuf’pr #i ls tek dj izkfIr jlhn izkIr dj ysxasA KkrO; gks fd mDr vafdr izkFkfedrk vfare ,oa vifjorZuh; gksxhA 5- vuqyXud & 6[k ftles vkosnu≶&izkFkfedrk izi= ds lkFk tek fd;s tkusokyh dkxtkr dh lwph vafdr gS] vk;ksx ds osclkbV ij miyC/k gSA 6- foKkiu la[;k & 110@2010] Lukrd Lrjh; la;qDr eq[; ijh{kk gsrq vkosnu≶&izkFkfedrk izi= vk;ksx dk;kZy; es gkFkks gkFk tek fd;s tkus dh vafre frfFk 8-6-2012 la/;k 05-00 cts fu/kkZfjr gSA ml frfFk ds Ik’pkr fdlh vH;FkhZ ls dksbZ vuqjks/k i=@dkxtkr vk;ksx }kjk Lohdkj ugh fd;k tk;sxk rFkk blds fy,s vH;FkhZ gh Lo;a ftEesokj gksaxsA 7- foKkiu la[;k & 110@2010 ds eq[; ijh{kk gsrq ijh{kk ds dqy i=ks] vadks ,oa ikB~;dzeksZ dh foLr`r tkudkjh of.kZr foKkiu dh dafMdk 12&14 es vfadr gS] ftls eq[; ijh{kk ds vH;FkhZ /;ku ls ns[k ysaxsA 8- mi;qZDr ds vfrfjDr foKkiu la[;k & 110@2010 ,oa mlds dze es izdkf’kr ‘kqf) i= dh vU; lHkh ‘krsZ ;Fkkor jgsaxsA lfpo fcgkj deZpkjh p;u vk;ksx] iVuk 33. This Court, therefore, would find nothing wrong in increase of number of posts and the selection made in respect of them. Law in this regard is also well settled that while future vacancies' may not be included in a selection process but anticipated vacancies can very well be included. In the present case in the advertisement itself it was mentioned that the number of vacancies could be increased before holding of the Main Examination and in fact before forms in the Main Examination were filled up by the candidates including the petitioners declared successful in Preliminary Test, the number of vacancies were increased and notified by the Commission. This procedure of including the anticipated vacancies has been invariably approved by the Apex Court. Reference in this connection may usefully be made to the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of K. Laxshmi Vs. State of Kerala & Ors., reported in (2012)4 SCC 115 [: 2012(2) PLJR (SC)416] and in the case of Arup Das & Ors. Vs. State of Assam & Ors., reported in (2012)5 SCC 559 . 34. Coming to the next aspect as with regard to increase in number of candidates allowed to appear in the Main Examination this Court would again find no merit in the same both on account of facts pleaded by the Commission as also no prejudice caused to the petitioners. It has to be kept in mind that all the petitioners in these cases are successful candidates of the preliminary test and if they have appeared in the Main Examination without any demur or protest as with regard to increase in number of candidates from 16497 to 27289, they cannot now after becoming unsuccessful raise a grievance on this score. 35. 35. It is true that, that the plea of the respondent Commission that such increase in number of candidates declared successful in the preliminary test was in accordance with the direction given by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10268/2012 and its analogous cases is not borne out from the judgment dated 30.10.2012 but from detailed account of the Court proceedings in the aforesaid cases given by the respondents in their counter affidavit and duly supported by the official records including the files of the Commission it would become clear that in course of hearing of the aforesaid batch cases assailing the result of the preliminary test dated 12.4.2012 declaring 16497 candidates as successful it became visible that on account of wrong questions and wrong answers and in fact some of the question being also out of syllabus the Commission had taken a decision of deleting Question No. 90 as also giving marks to all the candidates for question nos. 141, 142 and 143 and correcting the answers for question nos. 1, 80, 89, 93 and 130 due to which the result of 915 candidates already declared successful in the lot of 16497 was going to be adversely affected. 36. It also transpires from the notings in the file that certain oral observations were made by this Court in course of hearing of batch of the aforesaid writ petitions that the result of those 915 candidates already declared successful in the result of preliminary test should not be disturbed in view of the judgment of this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 2012(1) PLJR 542 . Thus, the action of the Commission while saving the result of those 915 candidates in the preliminary test declared on 12.4.2012 had actually led to inclusion of more candidates who had obtained same cutoff marks as by those 915 candidates and it was in that view of the matter that the Commission had revised the result of the preliminary test increasing from 16497 to 27289 candidates specially when number of posts were also increased from 1569 to 3285 only after declaration of preliminary test. In this regard the stand of the Commission in paragraphs no. 20 to 27 of the counter affidavit being 'relevant• is quoted hereinbelow:- "20. In this regard the stand of the Commission in paragraphs no. 20 to 27 of the counter affidavit being 'relevant• is quoted hereinbelow:- "20. That several writ petitions, i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 10268/12, 14078/12, 10683/12, 12209/12, 12506/12 and 19678/12 were filed challenging the result of the PT published on 12.4.12 and at the same time various representations were received by the Commission with regard to wrong questions, wrong answers and out of syllabus questions, the same has elaborately been referred to as paragraphs 8, 9 and 10 of the writ application. 21. That in all fairness, the Commission based on the representation of the candidates and the assertions made in the writ petitions filed by Subhash Paswan and others in this regard, constituted an Expert Committee consisting of 'Expert teachers of all subjects to re-evaluate the questions and Model answer of the Examination. It may be pointed out that the Expert Committee constituted by B.C.E.C.E. on the request of the Commission. 22. That the Committee of Expert reviewed all the questions and determined their answers. While doing so, they considered each and every suggestion given by the writ petitioners as also suggestions of the candidates who had filed representation in the Commission. 23. That the Commission vide its decision dated 25.7.2012 deliberated on the report of the Expert Committee and decided to declare and publish fresh results for the PT examination by deleting Q. No. 90, giving marks to all the candidates for Q.No. 141, 142 and 143 and correcting the answers for Q.No.1, 80, 89, 93 and 130 for which results had already been declared by the Commission on 12.4.2012. However, upon re-evaluation of the answers, 915 candidates who were earlier declared successful became unsuccessful and would be outsted and 1411 candidates who were not earlier selected would be declared successful. The aforesaid facts were brought to the knowledge of the Hon'ble High Court in the pending writ petitions by way of filing of the counter affidavit. 24. That the aforesaid writ petitions were heard and dismissed by a common order dated 30.10.12 delivered in Court upholding the stand of the Commission to publish the revised result on the basis of the Expert Committee's report. 24. That the aforesaid writ petitions were heard and dismissed by a common order dated 30.10.12 delivered in Court upholding the stand of the Commission to publish the revised result on the basis of the Expert Committee's report. While dismissing the writ petition, the Hon'ble Court in the presence of counsel for the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 10268 of 2012 and other analogous cases in the light of earlier directions passed by a Bench of this Hon'ble Court in the case of Manoj Kumar vs. State of Bihar, reported in 2012(1) PLJR 542 wherein the facts and circumstances were identical to the present case and related to the P.T. Examination conducted by the B.P.S.C. for the 52nd to 55th batch, observed and directed the counsel for the Commission that 915 candidates earlier declared successful shall not be ousted. It may be relevant to state herein that as per the Rules of B.P.S.C., 10 times the available vacancies are admitted for the Mains Examination. 25. That accordingly, the counsel appearing for the Commission before the learned Single Judge intimated the Commission by his letter dated 30.9.2012 about the order dated 30.10.2012 passed by a Bench of this Hon'ble Court as well as the observation and direction of the learned Single Judge that 915 candidates who would otherwise be ousted in view of the revised results are to be retained. 26. That the Commission as a matter of abundant precaution in view of the delay in obtaining certified copy of the order sought opinion from the State Government as to whether 915 candidates who would be ousted can be included for the Mains Examination. The General Administrative Department referred the matter to the Law Department for opinion which referred the matter for opinion of the Advocate General, Bihar. The office of the Advocate General opined that 915 unsuccessful candidates can be included and the cut-off has to be worked out in such a manner that all those candidates who got the cut-off within last among those 915 should also be included. Reference was made to the order passed in the case of Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 13022 of 2011) as a precedent. The Commission crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to produce the relevant files at the time of hearing of this application in support of its pleadings. 27. Reference was made to the order passed in the case of Manoj Kumar Singh vs. State of Bihar (C.W.J.C. No. 13022 of 2011) as a precedent. The Commission crave leave of this Hon'ble Court to produce the relevant files at the time of hearing of this application in support of its pleadings. 27. That as such the Commission in the light of observation and direction of the Hon'ble Court as communicated by its counsel and the opinion of the office of the Advocate General, declared the revised P.T. result on 28.12.2012 admitting all those candidates securing marks equivalent to the last of these 915 candidates were included in the list of successful candidates of the PT and as such, a total of 27289 candidates were declared successful in the PT and date of the Mains Examination was notified to be held on 27.1.2013. Thus, approximately one month time was granted before the Mains Examination and the candidates were also notified about the final vacancies of 3285 before the Mains Examination. The said fact has been admitted in paragraph 12 of C.W.J.C. No. 3640 of 2013." 37. It has to be noted that the aforesaid stand taken by the Commission stands also fully supported from their official records and the files wherein on the basis of oral observation of this Court in course of hearing of the writ petitions assailing the result of preliminary test, the Commission in order to retain those 915 candidates, who otherwise on the basis of re-evaluation and corrected model answers could have been disqualified from appearing in the Mains Examination, had reduced the cut-off leading to declaration of 27289 candidates as successful in the preliminary test. 38. There is one more aspect to the matter which would stop the petitioners from raising their challenge with regard to increase in number of successful candidates in the preliminary test inasmuch as not only some of the petitioners in these writ petitions were also the petitioners in the earlier batch of writ petitions being C.W.J.C. No. 10268/2012 and its analogous cases but they were also declared successful in the preliminary test• only because of lowering the minimum cut-off marks brought down for retaining those 915 candidates who had earlier been declared successful in the result of preliminary test but were later on found to be disqualified due to deletion of questions and/or correcting the model answers as explained above. 39. The very fact that none of the petitioners of those cases, who are also petitioners in these cases, have controverted the aforementioned statements made by the Commission in the counter affidavit disclosing the reason of oral observations of this Court for increase in number of successful candidates from 16497 to 27289 will actually clinch this issue in favour of the Commission that it had increased the number of successful candidates of the preliminary test in the light of the oral observations made by this Court in C.W.J.C. No. 10268 of 2012 and its analogous cases, especially when in the batch of these five writ petitions including in C.W.J.C. No.3640 of 2013, it has been stated in paragraph 9 as follows:- "9. That Subhash Paswan, Ananjay Kumar (petitioner no. 15 of the present case) and other filed C.W.J.C. No.10268/12 challenging the result published on 12.4.12 as contained in Annexure-2, for CBI investigation, and also for re-evaluation of answer book. Afzal Karim alongwith 22 persons including Prabhat Kumar (who is petitioner no.3 in the present case) filed C.W.J.C. No. 12506/12 filed for the same 'relief as prayed for by Subhash Paswan and others filed C.W.J.C. No. 14078/12 Vivek Ravi also filed C.W.J.C. No. 19678/12. The aforesaid writ applications were also disposed of by the Hon'ble High Court, Patna vide order dated 30.10.12." 40. It is thus absolutely clear that some of the petitioners of these cases i.e. C.W.J.C. No. 3640/2013 and C.W.J.C. No. 3740/2013 were also petitioners in the earlier batch of writ applications challenging the result of the preliminary test and therefore, they were in a position to deny the aforesaid stand taken by the Commission in its counter affidavit but none of them have controverted the same. Additionally, this Court also must note the stand of the Commission in paragraph no. Additionally, this Court also must note the stand of the Commission in paragraph no. 28 of the counter affidavit wherein it has been stated that 9 out of 20 writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3640/2013 and 6 writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3740/2013 are amongst the beneficiaries of the revised result, inasmuch as they were initially not declared as successful candidates amongst 16497 candidates in the result of preliminary test declared by the Commission and in fact they came to be included only because 915 persons of the successful candidates of the lot of 16497 were to be retained as per oral observations made in course of hearing of batch of, writ petitions and in the light of the ratio laid down by this Court in the case of Manoj Kumar (supra). To that extent the following statement of the respondent Commission in its counter affidavit in paragraph no. 28 reading as follows:- "28. That at this stage, it may be relevant to state herein that 9 writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3640 of 2013 out of a total of 20 writ petitioners and 6 writ petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3740 of 2013 are beneficiary of the revised results who were neither among the 17,497 candidates initially declared successful on 12.4.2012 nor were amongst the 1411 candidates included upon revision of results. These writ petitioners came to be accommodated as 915 candidates earlier selected had to be accommodated as they have secured marks equivalent to the aforesaid 915 candidates in the revised results. Thus, by the present writ petition after having participated willingly in the Mains Examination, these writ petitioners cannot challenge the results of the P.T. Examination declared on 28.12.2012." would by itself go to show that the petitioners are virtually trying to raise an unnecessary issue and in fact to that extent they cannot be allowed to approbate and reprobate inasmuch as they have earlier taken advantage of the revision of the result of the preliminary test and today they are trying to assail the same result which cannot be permitted on the settled principles of estoppel by conduct. 41. There is yet another facet to the whole issue, inasmuch as the total number of applicants in response to the advertisement issued by the Commission were 3,85,799 and out of them 2,53,795 had also appeared in the preliminary test. 41. There is yet another facet to the whole issue, inasmuch as the total number of applicants in response to the advertisement issued by the Commission were 3,85,799 and out of them 2,53,795 had also appeared in the preliminary test. Thus, if the Commission had screened 27289 candidates i.e. almost 10% of the total of candidates appearing in the preliminary examination for allowing them to appear in the Mains Examination the same cannot be held to be bad especially when there is no rule prohibiting the number of candidates. In fact the Bihar Public Service Commission has invariably been following the practice of either calling ten times of number of vacancies or 10% of the total candidates appearing in the" preliminary test for the main written examination and/or interview. 42. Thus, having regard to all the aforesaid aspects of the matter this Court also does not find any merit that on account of increase in number of successful candidates of the preliminary test from 16497 to 27289 any prejudice has been caused to the petitioners and in fact when some of them are only beneficiaries of such revision of result giving them at least a chance to appear in the Mains Examination today they cannot turn around and question the impugned result after they have become unsuccessful in the Mains Examination. 43. That would bring this Court to the most keenly contested plea on which the parties were heard on a number of days. Initially a challenge was thrown by the learned counsel for the petitioners that the model key answers prepared by the Commission in respect of a large number of them were either incorrect or even questions themselves were wrong which in turn has seriously prejudiced the petitioners and other candidates being 1497 in all who were declared unsuccessful in the Mains Examination. In this regard it would be useful to refer to the submissions of learned counsel of the petitioners as recorded in the proceedings of this Court dated 3.4.2013 in C.W.J.C. No. 3640/2013, which reads as follows:- "After the matter has been heard at length both yesterday and today the Commission's decision for deleting question nos. 88, 97 and 123 is no longer contested by the counsel for the petitioners. Their objection only now remains in respect of deletion of question no. 111. 88, 97 and 123 is no longer contested by the counsel for the petitioners. Their objection only now remains in respect of deletion of question no. 111. As with regard to questions for which an Expert Committee has changed the options namely, question nos. 5, 8, 21, 69, 144 and 145 the learned counsel for the petitioners have also got no grievance. Even in respect of question for which two correct options were given by the Expert Committee, the counsel for the petitioners could not satisfy as with regard to question nos. 98 and 119 and it is only in respect of question no. 82 that they have sought to make out a prima facie case. The questions were still to be contested amongst the remaining 13 questions, the counsel of the petitioners in course of making their submission and having regard to the materials on record have ultimately not sought to press as with regard to question nos. 49, 52, 60, 66, 135 and 145. That would now leave this Court to determine as to whether the rest of the questions namely question nos.61, 107, 124, 125, 147, 148 and 149 alongwith question nos. 82 and 111 needs to be referred to independent experts for obtaining their opinion, inasmuch as, from paragraph no. 8 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed by the Commission, it becomes clear that the experts appointed by the Commission did not give any reason for changing their opinion as with regard to the model answers in respect to the aforementioned questions. In that view of the matter, this Court would now hear the parties day after tomorrow only in respect of aforesaid nine questions for considering as to whether they have to be referred to independent experts for obtaining their opinion only after the counsel for the petitioners would file an affidavit with supporting materials referred to by them today in course of their submission and supplying copy thereof to the other side." 44. Thus, the aforesaid order dated 3.4.2013, would bear it out that initially the challenge was thrown by the learned counsel for the petitioners to a large number of questions but ultimately they could not satisfy this Court in respect of all them. Thus, the aforesaid order dated 3.4.2013, would bear it out that initially the challenge was thrown by the learned counsel for the petitioners to a large number of questions but ultimately they could not satisfy this Court in respect of all them. This Court had in fact noted that their submission that questions nos.88, 97, 107 and 123 in the subject of General Knowledge to the effect they had no correct answer in the four multiple choice given to such question and therefore, the Commission ought to have deleted them altogether. Counsel for the petitioners had also submitted that questions no. 98, 124, 125 and 147 in fact had two correct answers and therefore, those questions ought to have been also deleted especially when there was a provision for negative marking for wrong answer. As with regard to questions no.5, 8, 21, 60, 144 and 145 it was submitted that one of the option given in the choice was itself correct but the Commission had changed them by a wrong answer which has prejudiced the examinees including the petitioners. Finally it was also contended that the Hindi rendering (Translation) of question no. 148 and 149 was altogether different from English version and as such, the Commission ought to have deleted them. 45. In course of submission, however, counsel for the petitioners had withdrawn their challenge towards questions no. 88, 97 and 123. They had further submitted that in view of the explanation given by the Commission they had no grievance with regard to questions no. 5, 8, 21, 49, 52, 60, 66, 69, 134 and 145. This Court also having examined the objection of the petitioners in respect of questions no. 98 and 119 had found no merit in them. 46. As a matter of fact the challenge of the petitioners as recorded in the order dated 3.4.2013 had ultimately remained confined to questions no. 61, 82, 107, 111, 124, 125, 147, 148 and 149. 47. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner (sic-Commission ?) in CWJC No. 3740 of 2013 on the other hand has defended the stand of the Commission as clearly spelt out in the counter affidavit. 61, 82, 107, 111, 124, 125, 147, 148 and 149. 47. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned senior counsel for the petitioner (sic-Commission ?) in CWJC No. 3740 of 2013 on the other hand has defended the stand of the Commission as clearly spelt out in the counter affidavit. In this regard, he had also produced the original records to show that after the Mains Examination was held on 27.1.2013, the Commission itself had published the model answer-sheet as decided by the Board of Examiners for inviting objection from the candidates and in altogether 2861 objections were received with reference to the 80 questions/correct answers. He has also explained that on the basis of such objections received, the matter was again placed before the Board of Examiners who in its meeting held on 1.2.2013 having reviewed the question as also objection had re-determined their answers and had recommended correction of answer of question nos. 5, 8, 21, 69, 144 and 145 whereas it has found two answers to be correct in respect of question nos. 82, 98 and 119 and the Board of Examiners had also recommended for altogether deleting four questions as they had no correct answer, namely, question no. 88, 97, 111 and 123. 48. The aforesaid whole aspect has been summarized in paragraph nos. 31 to 34 of the counter affidavit of the Commission which for sake of clarity and convenience is quoted hereinbelow:- "31. That the mains examinations were held on 27.1.2013 at 47 examination centres in Patna. The scanning of the answer sheets was commenced on 28.1.2013 by the B.C.E.C.E. Board. The key (the correct answer for the question) prepared by the Question setters was published/uploaded on the websites of the B.S.S.C. (Commission) on 28.1.2013 inviting objections from the candidates by 31.1.2013. It may be relevant to state herein that the Commission adopted the aforesaid procedure to ensure complete fairness and to avoid any future complication and delay in final publication of the merit list. The said modality is now being followed by various other examinations bodies including B.P.S.C. Till the prescribed date, i.e. 31.1.2013, 2861 objections were received with respect to 80 questions/correct answers. 32. That the Commission in all fairness, before publication of the results, based on the representation/objections of the candidates, constituted an Expert Committee consisting of Expert teachers of all subjects to reevaluate the questions and Model answer of the Examination. 33. 32. That the Commission in all fairness, before publication of the results, based on the representation/objections of the candidates, constituted an Expert Committee consisting of Expert teachers of all subjects to reevaluate the questions and Model answer of the Examination. 33. That the Committee of Expert on 1.2.2013 reviewed all the questions and determined their answers and accordingly recommended as follows:- (i) Correction of answers of Question Nos. 5, 8, 21, 69, 144 & 145 i.e. 6 question. (ii) It also suggested that Q. Nos. 82, 98 & 119 has two correct answers i.e. 3 questions. (iii) It recommended that Q.Nos. 88, 97, 111 & 123 be DELETED i.e. 4 questions. Thus, the Expert Committee recommended deletion, of questions/change in the model answer/addition of correct option with respect to 13 questions only in the following manner:- SI Q. Model Recommendation No. No. Answers of Expert Committee 1 05 A C 2 08 B C 3 21 A B 4 69 A D 5 82 C B+C 6 88 B DELETED 7 97 A DELETED 8 98 D D+A 9 111 C DELETED 10 119 D A+D 11 123 C DELETED 12 144 A B 13 145 C B Either of the two opted by the candidates were to be awarded full marks. 34. That the Commission deliberated on the report of the Expert Committee on 6.2.2013 and decided to declare and publish the results for the Mains Examination based on the aforesaid recommendations of the Expert Committee and published/uploaded the result/merit list on 6.2.2013 on the website of the Commission on the basis of 146 questions by deleting Q. Nos. 88, 97, 111 & 123, correcting the answers for Q. Nos. 5, 8, 21, 69, 144, 145 as aforesaid and giving marks to all who had attempted either of the two options as aforesaid for question nos. 82, 98 & 119. It may be stated that the objection of the candidates with respect to difference between the English and Hindi version of couple of questions were not entertained in view of Clause 6 of the Instructions as contained in the Test booklet which stated that if there is any difference between English version and the corresponding translated version in Hindi of any question, then the English version will be treated as authentic." 49. In the light of the aforesaid explanation, this Court would find that though there may be scope for criticism for the wavering stand being taken by the Board of Examiners, inasmuch as, even according to them there were apparent thirteen mistakes in the model answers out of 150 questions and their respective answers. It has to be kept in mind that for every correct answer, four marks was to be given and for every wrong answer one mark was to be deducted as would be evident from the relevant portion of the extract of the booklet of question which reads as follows:- "4. In the Test Booklet, there are 150 questions. Thus 150 questions in all are to be answered. 5. Each question is of 4 marks, which will be awarded for the correct answer. 1 mark will be deducted for each wrong answer. More than one Answer indicated against a Question will be declared as incorrect Answer. 6. If there is any difference between English version and the corresponding translated version in Hindi of any question, then the English version will be treated' as authentic." 50. This Court, having found that the qualifying marks having been also set out in the supplementary counter affidavit ranging between' 330 to 422 for different categories and among the 400 petitioners,' 380 of them securing more than 300 and above, was very particular as with regard to net only the fate of the petitioners but also of the rest of the candidates 1497 in all who were not declared successful in the Main Examination. It was in fact admitted by the counsel for the Commission himself that difference of even one question or one mark would make a world of difference in crossing of the line by becoming successful or going out of fence on being declared unsuccessful. Way back in the case of Kanpur University & Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta & Ors. reported in AIR 1983 SC 1230 , the law in this respect was laid down by Apex Court in the following words: "It is true that the key-answer 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. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct." And also held:- "Where it is proved that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect the students are entitled to relief asked for. In case of doubt unquestionably the key answer has to be preferred. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalize the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong." 51. Based on the aforesaid parameters, this Court has very carefully examined the submission of the learned counsel for the parties as with regard to the remaining question which remains under the zone of dispute despite redetermination by the Board of Examiners on the basis of which the marking was done. This Court would find merit in the objection of the petitioners to question no. 82, which reads as follows:- "82. The largest beach in India is in (A) Kerala (B) Goa (C) Tamil Nadu (D) West Bengal" 52. The model answer in Annexure - 11 had shown it as option "C" which would mean Tamil Nadu. The Examiners in the process of redetermination however had held that though "C" may be correct answer but "B" i.e. the State of Goa will also be the correct answer. The question however asked from the candidates was which was the "largest" beach in India and there cannot be two largest. In fact, Mr. Jitendra Singh also after taking instruction from the Commission had ultimately fairly conceded that the revised model answer prepared by the Board of Examiners on 1.2.2013 so far it relates to question no. 82 was incorrect and the Commission was prepared to delete it as was also clearly recorded' in the ordersheet dated 5.4.2013. 53. Similarly question no. 147 and its four multiple choice answer had read as follows:- "147. a, b, c, d, e and f are randomly siting in six chairs regularly spaced around a round table. Such that neighbours a is between d and e, c is opposite d, d and e are not neighbours. Which one of the following is true? Similarly question no. 147 and its four multiple choice answer had read as follows:- "147. a, b, c, d, e and f are randomly siting in six chairs regularly spaced around a round table. Such that neighbours a is between d and e, c is opposite d, d and e are not neighbours. Which one of the following is true? (A) a is opposite b (B) d is opposite e (C) c and bare neighbours (D) b and e are neighbours" The petitioners in CWJC No. 3740 of 2013 have enclosed their objection-sheet which they had filed pursuant to the notice of the Commission inviting objection on the model answer to show that they too had pointed out that none of the answers were correct and yet the Board of Examiners had brushed them aside without changing the model answer which had shown option "D” to be the correct answer. 54. In course of submission, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned 'counsel for the Commission, however, again had to concede that the option "D" decided by the expert was incorrect answer and in fact he had made such submission after getting instruction from the Commission. He had also admitted that there was no correct answer in any of the four options of question no. 147 as quoted above. He had also fairly submitted that since none of the four answers in option were correct and the Commission was prepared to delete the said question no.147, which was also recorded by this Court in the order dated 5.4.2013 relevant portion whereof reads as follows:- "When the further hearing of these cases has commenced today, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the Staff Selection Commission, having instruction from the Chairman of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission, has made a submission that out of nine questions namely, questions nos. 61, 82, 107, 111, 124, 125, 147, 148 and 149 which were under the zone of dispute as recorded in the earlier order dated 3.4.2013, the Commission on reconsideration is prepared to change the answer in respect of question no. 82 relating to the largest beach. He has submitted that there will be only one correct answer namely the largest beach will be in the State of Tamil Nadu which is option "C" amongst the four alternative answers given. 82 relating to the largest beach. He has submitted that there will be only one correct answer namely the largest beach will be in the State of Tamil Nadu which is option "C" amongst the four alternative answers given. He has, accordingly, submitted that the Commission is prepared to review the answer sheets of all the candidates on the basis of answer no. "C" of question no. 82 to be the only correct answer. Proceeding further, Mr. Singh has also submitted that on a reconsideration, the Commission finds that there would be no correct answer in respect of question no. 147, inasmuch as, if all the parameters therein have to strictly followed, which must be followed, none of the four alternative answers would be correct. He has, accordingly, on instruction of the Commission taken a stand that the Commission is prepared to delete altogether question no. 147 from its being evaluated alike questions nos. 88, 97, 111 and 123. As with regard to the rest of the seven questions, this Court has heard the parties at length. At this stage, Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel for the Commission, seeks adjournment to take further instruction as with regard to the stand of Commission in respect of questions no.148 & 149." 55. As with regard to question no.148 and 149 which in English and Hindi rendering in answer booklet reads as follows:- "148. The numbers in the following diagram shows the failures in the respective exams. The total number of students was 500. The % of students who failed in at least two exams is English 30 12 5 10 80 12 75 Hindi Maths (A) 6.8 (B) 7.8 (C) 34 (D) 39 ^^148- fuEu fp= es LkaLFkk, mu ijh{kkvks es Qsy Nk=ks dks n’kkZrh gSA dqy Nk= la[;k 500 gSA mu Nk=ks dh la[;k tks U;wure nks ijh{kkvks es Qsy gq, gS 30 bfaXy’k 12 5 10 80 12 75 fgUnh xf.kr (A) 6.8 (B) 7.8 (C) 34 (D) 39 149. In a class, 18 boys are > 160 cm tall. This constitute 3/4 of the boys. The boys are 2/3 of the total students. In a class, 18 boys are > 160 cm tall. This constitute 3/4 of the boys. The boys are 2/3 of the total students. The number of girls in the class is (A) 6 (B) 12 (C) 18 (D) 24 149- ,d d{kk es 18 yM+ds > 160 ls-eh- yacs gSA ;g dqy Nk=ks dk 3@4 gSA dqy Nk=ks dk 2@3 yMds gSA d{kk es yM+fd;ks dh la[;k gSA (A) 6 (B) 12 (C) 18 (D) 24" 56. The submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners was that its Hindi rendering was altogether different to the English version and to that extent, they had pointed out the dichotomy and confusion created on account of totally different meaning being conveyed in Hindi version. In this regard learned counsel for the petitioners had also explained that on account of absolutely different expression in the Hindi translation of questions in English rendering of the aforesaid two questions, it had created sufficient doubt in the minds of the examinees including the petitioners who having found none of them to be correct by simultaneous reading of both Hindi and English text could not be penalized and yet their objections to the model answer holding option "B" to be correct in respect of both the question nos. 148 & 149 was wrongly rejected by the Commission in view of the• opinion of the Board of Examiners. 57. Mr. Jitnedra Singh while in respect of question no. 148 having taken instruction from the Commission had submitted that the Commission in view of incorrect translation in Hindi was prepared to delete also• question no. 148 from the zone of consideration as it had a wrong answer but in view of the instruction no.4 on the OMR Sheet already quoted above, the Commission was of the view that there was no such glaring difference in the Hindi rendering of the question no. 149. He however had submitted that there appeared to be some confusion in the Hindi rendering on account of there being no literal translation of the English in Hindi version and the Commission in order to remove this discrepancy was prepared to delete even question no. 149 from the zone of consideration. This part of his submissions was recorded in the order-sheet dated 8.4.2013 relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow:- "Mr. 149 from the zone of consideration. This part of his submissions was recorded in the order-sheet dated 8.4.2013 relevant portion whereof is quoted hereinbelow:- "Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned counsel appearing on behalf of Bihar Staff Selection Commission, has submitted that the Commission on reconsideration has agreed for deleting question no. 148 from the zone of consideration taking into account that the Hindi translation of the same question was not giving the correct impression of the four answers deduced on the basis of English rendering of the said question. He, however, has submitted that the position would not be the same in relation to question no. 149, inasmuch as, Hindi rendering of the question will not give any correct answer and therefore, as per instruction no. 6 of the question booklet the examinees were required to find out the correct answer with the help of English rendering of the question. He has, however, submitted that the Commission does not want to linger the issue and if it is accepted by the Petitioners that there would be no further probing of any other question, the Commission in all fairness will also delete question no. 149 from its consideration. Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that at least two questions i.e. question nos. 124 and 125 would require the view of the independent expert because the answer given by some of the petitioners as option 'B' into the said question is fully borne and stands supported from exercise books and as such the view of the experts of the Commission of only option 'A' to be correct cannot be acted upon. For that purpose he has referred to a book naming 'A Modern Approach to Verbal Reasoning' written by Sri R.S Aggarwal." 58. In the considered opinion of this Court, such stand taken on behalf of the learned counsel for the Commission seems to be very fair, inasmuch as, such of the questions which had incorrect answer has to be altogether deleted from the zone of consideration as was held by the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University (supra):- "--------- in a system of 'Multiple Choice Objective type test', care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick marking of the correct answer. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick marking of the correct answer. It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it." 59. The aforesaid ratio laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University (supra) in fact has been also subsequently followed in the its later judgments in the cases of Abhijit Sen & Ors. vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in AIR 1984 SC 1402 , Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board & Ors. vs. Chandan Mishra & Ors. reported in 1995 Suppl. (3) SCC 77 and State of Orissa & Ors. vs. Prajnaparamita Samanta & Ors. reported in (1996)7 SCC 106 . 60. This Court, however, would find no merit in the challenge of the petitioner to the question no. 61, which reads as follows:- "61. The primay product of photosynthesis is (A) Citric acid (B) Glucose (C) Starch (D) Maltose" 61. The model answer was Option "B" i.e. Glucose being primary product of photosynthesis which is well supported by the authorised text book published by N.C.E.R.T. Thus such opinion of experts on •this answer cannot be questioned by the petitioners or accepted by the Court only on the basis of some publication in Guide to the Competitive Examination wherein both starch and glucose have been shown to be the answer. The Apex Court in the case of Kanpur University (supra) had itself drawn a line of caution in this regard in the following words:- "It is true that the key-answer 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 rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular" subject would regard as correct." 62. The grievance of the petitioners as with regard to question no. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular" subject would regard as correct." 62. The grievance of the petitioners as with regard to question no. 111 is also wholly misconceived, inasmuch as, the Board of Examiners on the basis of the objection filed by the examinees including the petitioners have deleted the question no. 111 from the zone of consideration. In view of the fact that this question is not going to be evaluated for any of the candidates, this Court fails to understand as to how the plea advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioners can be accepted that the Board of Examiners had in fact committed a mistake in deleting question no. 111 though it had a correct answer in the model key answers. The moment such question no. 111 has gone out of consideration for all the candidates, no prejudice can be said to have been caused to the petitioners alone. Thus, the challenge of the petitioners to question no. 111 also must be rejected. 63. Judged on the aforementioned parameters, this Court also does not find any merit to the challenge of the petitioner in respect of question nos. 107, 124 & 125 all three of which are based on logical deduction. The answers determined in respect of them by the experts, being the members of the Board of Examiners, cannot be lightly brushed aside and interfered with by this Court only on the basis of some guides of competitive examination produced by the counsel for the parties, namely, "Modern Approach to Verbal Reasoning" written by Sri R.S. Agarwal. In fact, the Intervener respondents have also produced some other books/opinion to show that the answer given by the experts in the key answer in respect of those question nos. 61, 107, 124 and 125 were correct. 64. In view of the aforesaid findings of this Court as also the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of LIC vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar reported in (1994) 2SCC 718, in the cased A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors. reported in (2004)7 SCC 112 and in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission VS. In view of the aforesaid findings of this Court as also the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of LIC vs. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar reported in (1994) 2SCC 718, in the cased A. Umarani vs. Registrar, Cooperative Societies & Ors. reported in (2004)7 SCC 112 and in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission VS. Mukesh Thakur & Another reported in (2010)6 SCC 759 [: 2010(3) PLJR (SC)127], it must be held that this Court cannot take on the role of examiners or evaluators or that of the Selection Board to examine discrepancy either in the question paper or the answer sheet so as to assume the role of examiners paper setter and evaluator which is to be left to the expert body. It is with reason and purpose that courts have to assume the answer given in the key answer to be correct and any interference in a very light manner would tend this Court to take the role of the paper setter which would be clearly beyond the purview of judicial review. As is well understood and well settled, the power of judicial review generally speaking is not to be extended against the decision but is directed only against the decision making process. 65. Thus, this Court would only sustain the challenge of the petitioners to wrong answers in respect of only four questions, namely, question nos. 82, 147, 148 and 149 which have in fact had also been conceded by the learned senior counsel for the Commission. 66. This Court however will be under obligation to also consider one more submission of Mr. Abhinav Srivastava, learned counsel for the petitioners who in his usual flair has submitted with vehemence that on account of large number of infirmities beginning from expanding the zone of consideration to large number of mistakes of questions and model key answers in the preliminary test and again in the Mains Examination where there is also a cloud with regard to the access of criminals in the strong room of the office of the Commission, this Court should set aside the entire selection process by directing the Commission to ,hold a fresh selection process de novo. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. In this regard, he has placed reliance on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs. O. Chakradhar reported in (2002)3 SCC 146 [ : 2002(2) PLJR (SC) 263]. 67. This Court on threadbare analysis of the materials on record and after hearing the parties would find that there is no such inherent infirmity which has in fact vitiated the entire selection process. As noted above, the zone of number of candidates have increased on account of the oral observations made by this Court in course of hearing the writ applications directed against the result of the preliminary test and in fact as this Court had desired to save the fate and future of 915 candidates already declared successful in the preliminary test that the Commission had to lower down the cut-off marks. Again, some of the petitioners themselves being beneficiary of such revised result of the preliminary test on account of lowering of the cut off marks, they cannot be heard to say that the entire selection process was vitiated. Added to all these, this Court has found no criminality in holding of the Mains Examination or preparation of its result, an aspect which has been also fully explained in the counter affidavit tiled by the I.G., Economic Offence Wing wherein nothing has been said about the answer-sheet being tampered relating to Mains Examination whose results have been questioned by the petitioners in these writ petitions. 68. The case law referred to and relied by Mr. Srivastava in the case of O. Chakradhar (supra) is also wholly inapplicable in the facts of these cases inasmuch as, the Apex Court in that case, on the basis of the report of the CBI, had found that the answer-sheet packets were stealthily opened and answers were filled up in the blank spaces left by the -examinees while they were in the custody of the Chairman of the Commission. As a matter of fact, further findings were recorded with regard to interview wherein two boards were constituted for the interview having no technical personnel as its member as per requirement. As a matter of fact, further findings were recorded with regard to interview wherein two boards were constituted for the interview having no technical personnel as its member as per requirement. It was also indicated in that case that though each member was required to award marks to the candidates in the individual assessment sheets to be provided to them and average was to be worked out and the columns being vacant was later on filled up as per wishes of the Chairman and Member Secretary of the Board and signatures of the non-official members were obtained on the summary sheet later on. Added to all these things, there were allegation of huge amount of money being taken for selecting the candidates and the CBI had also found that the non-official Chairman of the Board had made payment of printing of the examination paper etc. not to any firm but individually. 69 The Apex Court having thus found 110m the report of the CBI that the whole selection smacks of mala fide and arbitrariness and all norms were violated with impunity at each stage i.e. right from the stage of entertaining applications with answer-sheet while in the custody of the Chairman, in holding typing test, in interview and in preparing the final result. It was in such circumstances, that the Apex Court had held that it was not possible to pick out or choose a few persons in respect of whom alone the selection could be cancelled and their services in pursuance thereof could be terminated. The following observations of the Apex Court in the case of O. Chakradhar (supra) therefore is the ratio wherein it was laid down that:- "8. In our view the nature and the extent of illegalities and irregularities committed in conducting a selection will have to be scrutinized in each case so as to come to a conclusion about future course of action to be adopted in the matter. If the mischief played is so widespread and ail-pervasive, affecting the result, so as to make it difficult to pick out the persons who have been unlawfully benefited or wrongfully deprived of their selection, in such cases it will neither be possible nor necessary to issue individual show-cause notices to each selected. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance. 12. The only way out would be to cancel the whole selection. Motive behind the irregularities committed also has its relevance. 12. ----------- The illegality and irregularity are so intermixed with the whole process of the selection that it becomes impossible to sort out the right from the wrong or vice versa. The result of such a selection cannot be relied or acted upon. It is not a case where a question of misconduct on the part of a candidate is to be gone into but a case where those who conducted the selection have rendered it wholly unacceptable. Guilt of those who have been selected is not the question under consideration but the question is, could such selection be acted upon in the matter of public employment? We are therefore of the view that it is not one of those cases where it may have been possible to issue any individual notice or misconduct to each selectee and seek his explanation in regard to the large scale, widespread and all-pervasive illegalities and irregularities committed by those who conducted the selection which may of course possibly for the benefit of those who have been selected but there may be a few who may have deserved selection otherwise, but it is difficult to separate the cases of some of the candidates from the rest even if there may be some. The decision in the case of Krishan Yadav applies to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Railway Board's decision to cancel the selection cannot be faulted with." 70. Thus, from a threadbare analysis of the aforesaid judgment of the Apex Court, it is clear that it was one of those cases where the entire process of selection was found to be vitiated. Such is however not the facts of the cases in hand and, therefore, this Court in absence of any evidence to show that there was any glaring malpractice in the examination or preparation of result would reject the prayer for cancellation of the entire selection process. 71. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter also stands settled in the case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2515-2516 of 2013 disposed of on 13th of March. 71. As a matter of fact, this aspect of the matter also stands settled in the case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors. vs. State of Bihar & Ors. (Civil Appeal Nos. 2515-2516 of 2013 disposed of on 13th of March. 2013 wherein when a direction was given by this Court for the cancellation of entire selection on account of number of incorrect answers in the model answer conducted by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission for filling up the post of Junior Engineers, it was held by the Apex Court that fresh evaluation of the answer-sheet was the better option instead of canceling the entire examination. The Apex Court in fact had held as follows:- 16. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key, and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was in the circumstances no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to ho held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less ex-, pensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the reevaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case." 72. Having explained the inapplicability of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O. Chakradhar (supra) this Court is not required to once again consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krishan Yadav and Another vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (1994)4 SCC 165 on which reliance was placed by Mr. Having explained the inapplicability of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of O. Chakradhar (supra) this Court is not required to once again consider the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Krishan Yadav and Another vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in (1994)4 SCC 165 on which reliance was placed by Mr. Dinu Kumar learned counsel for the petitioners in C.W.J.C. No. 3640 of 2013, inasmuch as, not only the aforementioned case was referred to in the case of O. Chakradhar (supra) but even otherwise from a bare perusal of the facts of that case it would be clear that actually fraud was practiced in course of selection and appointment of Taxation Inspector by Chairman and Members of the Subordinate Selection Board, rendering the whole examination and interview to be farce. It was in this regard that the Apex Court had held as follows:- "Having regard to all the above, the irresistible conclusion is "fraud has reached its crescendo". Deed as foul as these are inconceivable much less could be perpetrated. We are reminded .of the words of Shakespeare: "Thus much of this, will make Black, white; foul, fair; wrong, right; Base, noble; Ha you gods! why this?" It may not be too much to draw an inference that all these were motivated by extraneous considerations. Otherwise, how does one account for selection without interview, fake and ghost interviews, tampering with the final records, fabricating documents, forgery? Each of this would attract the penal provisions of Indian Penal Code. They have been done with impunity. The Story does not end here. From out of the "selection list" secret communications have been sent to the candidates. Selections were made without medical test or verification of antecedents. It is highly regrettable that the holders of public offices both big and small have forgotten that the offices entrusted to them are sacred trusts. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. Such offices are meant for use and not abuse. From a minister to a menial everyone has been dishonest to gain undue advantages. The whole examination and the interview have turned out to be farcical exhibiting base character of those who have been responsible for this sordid episode. It shocks our conscience to come across such a systematic fraud. It is somewhat surprising the High Court should have taken the path of least resistance stating, in view of the destruction of records, that it was helpless. It should have helped itself. Law is not that powerless. In the above circumstances, what are we to do? The only proper course open to us is to set aside the entire selection. The plea was made that innocent candidates should not be penalized for the misdeeds of others. We are unable to accept this argument. When the entire selection is stinking, conceived in fraud and delivered in deceit, individual innocence has no place as "fraud unravels everything". To put it in other words, the entire selection is arbitrary. It is that which is faulted and not the individual candidates. Accordingly, we hereby set aside the selection of Taxation Inspectors." 73. Obviously, in the present case there is no such allegation and except for a faint suggestion that the answer sheets of the Main Examination kept in the strong room of the Commission were interfered, which also is not found to be substantiated in any manner. This in fact stands well explained from the counter affidavit filed by I.G., Economic Offences as has already been dealt in earlier part of the judgment. 74. Reliance placed on the next judgment by Mr. Dinu Kumar learned Counsel for the petitioner on the case of Pramod Kumar Dukania and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors. reported in 1997(2) PLJR 325 is equally misplaced. The facts of that case and the finding recorded by this Court will go to show that in the Combined Engineering Entrance Examination conducted by the Department of Science & Technology of the Government of Bihar was found to be fully vitiated on account of use of unfair and fraudulent means as well as tampering of records. The facts of that case and the finding recorded by this Court will go to show that in the Combined Engineering Entrance Examination conducted by the Department of Science & Technology of the Government of Bihar was found to be fully vitiated on account of use of unfair and fraudulent means as well as tampering of records. Similarly, even in the case of Sunil Kumar Sinha vs. The State of Bihar reported in 2009(1) PLJR 744 relating to selection process .of Bihar Administrative Service first Limited Competitive Examinatian-2003 conducted by the Bihar Public Service Commission, it was found that a large scale illegality and irregularity were committed in the selection process including the preparation of merit list and in the vigilance inquiry it was conclusively found that an organized conspiracy was hatched to which the Chairperson, Members, Officials and Staff of Bihar Public Service Commission became party as a result whereof their entire selection process was tainted and tarnished ever since the issuance of the advertisement. This Court in fact would fail to understand as to haw in the facts of the present case the ratio of the aforementioned two judgments .of the learned Single Judge in the case of Pramod Kumar Dukania (supra) and Sunil Kumar Sinha (supra) can be made applicable. 75. At this place it would be also important to note .one .of the submissions an behalf .of the successful candidates who have intervened in CWJC No. 3640 of 2013. It was submitted an their behalf that even if this Court would hold that re-evaluation an account of deletion of four question nos. 82, 147, 148 & 149 would be necessary, the said exercise may be confined only to the unsuccessful candidates without displacing 25792 candidates whose result have already been declared. In this regard, reliance by them have been placed an the aforementioned judgment .of the Apex Court in the case .of Rajesh Kumar (supra). 76. 82, 147, 148 & 149 would be necessary, the said exercise may be confined only to the unsuccessful candidates without displacing 25792 candidates whose result have already been declared. In this regard, reliance by them have been placed an the aforementioned judgment .of the Apex Court in the case .of Rajesh Kumar (supra). 76. This Court however, would find it difficult to accept the aforesaid submissions, inasmuch as, in the case of Rajesh Kumar (supra), it was held by the Apex Court that once the selected candidates an the basis of the earlier evaluation were already appointed and had also worked for a period of more than seven years, they could not be displaced and would be only affected in their respective inter se merit position, emerging out of the re-evaluation of the answer sheets of unsuccessful candidates with reference to the correct key answers. This aspect also gets explained from paragraph nos. 17 & 18 of judgment which for sake of clarity is quoted hereinbelow:- "17. That brings us to the submission by Mr. Rao that while reevaluation is a good option not only to do justice to those who may have suffered on account of an erroneous key being applied to the process but also to writ petitioners-respondents 6 to 18 in the matter of allocating to them their rightful place in the merit list. Such evaluation need not necessarily result in the ouster of the appellants should they he found to fall below the 'cut-off' mark in the merit list. Mr. Rao gave two reasons in support of that submission. Firstly, he contended that the appellants are not responsible for the error committed by the parties in the matter of evaluation of the answer scripts. The position may have been different if the appellants were guilty of any fraud, misrepresentation or malpractice that would have deprived them of any sympathy from the Court or justified their ouster. Secondly, he contended that the appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Secondly, he contended that the appellants have served the State efficiently and without any complaint for nearly seven years now and most of them, if not all, may have become overage for fresh recruitment within the State or outside the State. They have also lost the opportunity to appear in the subsequent examination held in the year 2007. Their ouster from service after their employment on the basis of a properly conducted competitive examination not itself affected by any malpractice or other extraneous consider ation or misrepresentation will cause hardship to them and ruin their careers and lives. The experience gained by these appellants over the years would also, according to Mr. Rao, go waste as the State will not have the advantage of using valuable human resource which was found useful in the service of the people of the State of Bihar for a long time. Mr. Rao, therefore, prayed for a suitable direction that while re-evaluation can determine the inter-se position of the writ petitioners and the appellants in these appeals, the result of such re-evaluation may not lead to their ouster from service, if they fell below the cut-off line. 18. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes without saying that the appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list." 77. Thus it would become clear that the earlier selection of the candidates were not interfered only because they had already been appointed and had continued in service for more than seven years. Thus it would become clear that the earlier selection of the candidates were not interfered only because they had already been appointed and had continued in service for more than seven years. In the present case the Commission has only declared the result which is yet to even reach the Government in form of recommendation of the Commission. In fact this Court had restrained the Commission from conducting counseling and thus the Commission has not even sent its recommendation for 3285 advertised posts. 78. In view of the above, it has to be held that re-evaluation after deleting the four questions i.e. question nos. 82, 147, 148 & 149 has to be made in respect of each and every 27289 declared successful in the preliminary test including 25792 who have been declared successful in the Mains Examination. 79. That would bring this Court to the last plea of the petitioners Mr. Dinu Kumar, learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the declaration of result by the Commission being not postwise and category-wise would vitiate the entire result. Mr. Jitendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the Commission, however has explained this aspect by relying on paragraph no.35 of the counter affidavit which reads as follows:- "35. That thus in terms of the available vacancies, a total of 3285 candidates category wise have been invited for counseling on 25.2.2013 in the following manner: 80. Mr. Singh has also explained that the result of the successful candidates have been published strictly in accordance with the requisition sent by the State Government for various categories and since counseling in each of the category has to be made for different types of post, there could not have been separate category-wise recommendation for each of the post. He has also explained that in any view of the matter this will not make any material difference because ultimately for each of the department on the basis of option given by the successful candidates in course of counseling the post will have to be filled up by following the Rules of Reservation and Roster amongst the successful candidates on merit. 81. 81. In the considered opinion of this Court when a large number of post, around 3285 of different categories in different departments have to be filled up, the Commission having held one examination can only send the consolidated list of recommendation only on the basis of counseling after seeking option and choice of the successful candidates in the Mains Examination on the basis of merit and rank secured by each of the candidate in the respective category. This exercise in fact is yet to be made by the Commission and in fact no prejudice on this score can be complained by unsuccessful 1497 candidates including the petitioners inasmuch as the result of Mains Examination of 25792 candidates declaring them to be successful would ultimately get limited to recommendation for appointment on 3285 posts. In fact no illustration has been given as to how any of the petitioner could have qualified by displacing of any of the successful candidates in case such recommendation was made postwise and category-wise. 82. This Court is also not in a position to accept the submission of Mr. Abhinav Srivastava learned counsel for the petitioner who while explaining the aforesaid aspect relating to non-publication of result category-wise had sought to impress that in the unreserved category for 1571 posts the inclusion of candidates of the reserved category who ultimately may not avail the benefit of the unreserved category on account of their being not given the choice post in course of counseling would lead to an anomalous situation by creation of further vacancy for the candidates of unreserved category. 83. In the considered opinion of this Court, the said submission of Mr. Srivastava is completely hypothetical. The question which as of now before this Court is as to whether the Mains Examination which was held by the Commission and its result published by the Commission is in accordance with law. What would be the recommendation of the Commission based on such result is a subsequent event and in fact is also not the subject matter of these writ applications and, therefore, they cannot bf:3 gone into at least at the instance of the petitioners who as of now are unsuccessful candidates of the Main Examination. The petitioners being represented by Mr. The petitioners being represented by Mr. Srivastava are in fact candidates of the unreserved (general) category and, therefore, they are not entitled to question the result of the reserved candidates specially when none of them have cited their specific case by way of example that anyone of them could have been included on the vacancy created by the candidate of the reserved category who in course of counseling would not. avail the benefit of unreserved category for the purpose of choice of post. This Court, therefore, for the time being would not make any pronouncement on this issue especially when neither it is within the scope of the writ application nor has been explained in the pleadings in anyone of the five writ applications. To that extent, this Court must accept the submission of Mr. Singh, learned senior counsel for the Commission, that the respondents cannot be taken by surprise on this issue in absence of any pleading to this effect. 84. Thus, in the light of the discussions made above, all the writ applications are allowed and the result of the Mains Examination declared by the Commission is hereby set aside with a consequential direction to the Commission to re-evaluate all the answer-sheets of all the candidates including the petitioners who had appeared in the Mains Examination for filling up the 3285 posts of Graduate Level Combined Examination, 2010 relating to Advertisement No. 110/10 by deleting question nos. 82, 147, 148 and 149 and prepare a fresh result for its being published and sending recommendation to the State Government for doing the needful and making appointment on the 3285 advertised posts. 85. This exercise however must be completed by the Commission within a period of three months from the date of receipt of this judgment and the resultant appointment by the State Government also must be made within next three months from the date of receipt of the recommendation of the Commission. 86. Before parting with, this Court, however, must record its concern the manner in which the Commission has time and again failed in its duty in holding the competitive examination in a fair and objective manner. The Commission has been entrusted with huge responsibility of making recommendation of all non-gazetted post and in fact is conducting competitive test for a large number of candidates for various Class III posts. The Commission has been entrusted with huge responsibility of making recommendation of all non-gazetted post and in fact is conducting competitive test for a large number of candidates for various Class III posts. It is really unfortunate for this Court to note it time and again that the Commission has utterly failed in its duty in even holding such competitive test in a flawless manner. 87. As noted above, in this very case of Advertisement No. 110/10 wherein around two and half lacs candidates had appeared in the preliminary test, this Court had found that on account of deletion/changing the answer of nine questions, the fate and future of around eleven thousand candidates had changed, inasmuch as, the Commission had to revise the result by enhancing the number of qualified candidates from 16497 to 27289 candidates simply to preserve the 915 candidates who were earlier declared successful in the result of preliminary test on the basis of wrong evaluation of the nine questions. Again in the Mains Examination, this Court has found that the Commission itself had deleted four questions out of 150 as per the opinion of the experts, namely, question nos. 88, 97, 111 and 123 whereas answers in respective question nos. 5, 8, 21, 69, 144 and 145 were changed and in respect of three questions namely question nos. 82, 98, and 119, the experts had found two answers to be correct. Thus, out of 150 questions, the answers of 13 of them were found to be itself incorrect or doubtful by the experts of the Commission and now when four more questions no. 82, 147, 148 and 149 have been found to be fit to be deleted, the percentage of error would be more than 12%. 88. Such increasing number of errors in either preparation of questions paper or model key answer would reflect on the selection of poor quality of the examiners/experts which is being done on account of the incompetent and inexperienced set of persons associated with the functioning of the Commission. Keeping in view that in these competitive examinations,. 88. Such increasing number of errors in either preparation of questions paper or model key answer would reflect on the selection of poor quality of the examiners/experts which is being done on account of the incompetent and inexperienced set of persons associated with the functioning of the Commission. Keeping in view that in these competitive examinations,. not only the correct answer in a multiple choice answer to a question involves full marks for only one correct answer as also negative mark for a wrong answer, it would be in the fitness of the things that this job of recruitment is undertaken by the State of Bihar through some specialized expert agency having sufficient experience in the field of Human Relation (HR). A time has come when the State Government must think to utilize the services of experts of the field who would be better suited to evolve a fool-proof mechanism for holding such competitive examinations wherein there would be no place for giving any occasion for questioning the functioning of the Commission on account of large scale allegations of incompetence and corrupt practice. 89. This Court would not like to say anything more on this aspect but then would expect the State Government to give a serious re-thinking as with regard to the functioning of the Commission and its being manned by persons having no real experience of holding competitive examination and recruitment on a massive scale. As things stand today, every exercise. Of the Commission in holding the competitive examinations for filling up the post has generated hundred of litigations before this Court which can be safely avoided if the functioning of the Commission improves. In an age where the aspiration of the unemployed youth for getting employment on the basis of competitive examination is increasing everyday, the State Government cannot close its eye by remaining satisfied by appointing persons as Chairman and Members of the Commission who are not the expert in the field of recruitment and holding competitive examinations. It is high time that in the age of specialization, the generalists should make a place for the experts of the job which in turn would not only inspire in the selection process undertaken by the Commission but would also brighten the hopes and expectation of every candidate of being assured that true merit and nothing else will only be rewarded in the selection undertaken by the Commission. 90. This Court therefore hopes and believes that, before it becomes too late in the day, some serious thinking will be done at the highest level of the State Government for improving the overall functioning of the Commission. 91. Let a copy of this judgment be sent to the Chief Secretary of the State of Bihar for its being considered by the State Government.