ORDER I have heard the parties and perused the records. 2. In view of the overlapping of facts and the issues raised in the writ petitions, all of them have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common order. 3. Petitioners seek quashing of the result dated 30.12.2012 declared by the Bihar Staff Selection Commission (hereinafter to be referred to as “the Commission”) by which altogether 118 candidates from different categories were declared as successful for physical test/interview on the basis of their performance in the written examination for consideration of their cases for selection and appointment against the posts of Enforcement Sub Inspector in the services of the State Government in its Department of Transport. The petitioners further seek direction to the authorities to declare the final result after meeting the objections raised by different candidates against the defective questions or defective answers in the model answers published by the Commission in the written examination. The petitioners also seek declaration of the results of the candidates equal to 2.5 times the number of the vacancies even before the physical test had been conducted to be illegal and arbitrary. 4. It appears that during the pendency of the writ petitions, the final results were declared and recommendations were made by the Commission for appointment. However, vide order dated 13.02.2013 passed by this Court the respondents were directed not to act upon the recommendation made by the Commission till the final disposal of the writ applications. 5. Shorn of unnecessary details, the brief facts which would be necessary for consideration of the cases stand enumerated as under:– The Commission invited applications for appointment against the posts of Enforcement Sub Inspector in the Transport Department of the State Government vide Advertisement No. 1004 published on 17th of December, 2004 under the Bihar Transport (Enforcement Branch) Cadres Rules, 2003 which included twenty two (22) seats under unreserved category whereas eight(8) posts were reserved for the candidates of Scheduled Caste , two(2) posts of the candidates of Scheduled Tribe, eight(8) posts for the candidates of extremely Backward Caste, six(6) posts for Backward Caste category and one post for backward female category. It appears from the advertisement that the process of selection was divided into the written examination followed by interview. However, passing of physical fitness test, as per requirement of the post, was also required. It appears from the advertisement that the process of selection was divided into the written examination followed by interview. However, passing of physical fitness test, as per requirement of the post, was also required. It was also stated in the advertisement that if the number of the candidates would exceed forty thousand in such event there will be preliminary test prior to the main examination. The main examination would be of two papers. First paper being General Knowledge and General Studies, whereas the second paper would be the test relating to the Motor Vehicles Act/Rule and circulars etc. However, vide the notice contained in memo no. 2105 dated 10.05.2012 published in the newspaper, one of them in “Prabhat Khabar” Patna Edition, (Annexure 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 355 of 2013), it was indicated that there would be no preliminary test and there would be only main written examination. Eventually, the main examination was held in the form of objective test in which the candidates were required to answer two sets of 200 questions of 100 marks each for both the categories, i.e. General Knowledge and General Studies as well as from Bihar Motor Vehicles Act/Rules, etc. However, the Commission on 27.09.2012 came up with a notice appended as Annexure 4 to the C.W.J.C. No. 21191 of 2012 inviting objections from the candidates who had appeared in the main examination with respect to the correctness of the model answers published on the website of the Commission for both the papers, i.e. General Knowledge/General Studies as well and Bihar Motor Vehicles Act/Rules and circulars. Objections were filed by several candidates as it was found that the model answers published by the Commission suffered from the infirmities. Not only that, certain questions were also not correct. The objections were submitted along with the supporting document also corroborating the infirmities of the model answers as well as a large number of questions as per the claim of the petitioners. However, thereafter, the result of the main examination was published on 13.10.2012. A list of candidates who were shortlisted for appearing in the interview to be held by the Commission. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the candidates equal to 2.5 times number of vacancies had been shortlisted for interview and they were put to physical test. A list of candidates who were shortlisted for appearing in the interview to be held by the Commission. 6. It is submitted on behalf of the petitioners that the candidates equal to 2.5 times number of vacancies had been shortlisted for interview and they were put to physical test. It is further submitted that the Commission did not disclose the manner in which the issues of correct model answers and questions, against which objections were invited, were resolved. 7. That had led to filing of several writ petitions which were directed to be put up together and have been heard analogously. 8. Learned counsel for the petitioners of the writ petitions have more or less raised identical issues. First and the foremost issue that has been raised on behalf of the petitioners is that the model answers and even certain questions were suffering from several infirmities and, thus, due to those infirmities the entire examination stands vitiated in view of the fact that at the strength of such wrong questions and answers some of the candidates have been declared successful whereas several meritorious candidates have suffered. Learned counsel for the petitioners drew the attention of this Court towards some of he questions, for example, question nos. 25, 26, 58, 71, etc. in the paper for General Knowledge/General Studies as well as question nos. 6, 11, 20, 46, 71, 74, etc. in the technical paper (under Bihar Motor Vehicles Act/Rules) to show that the model answers are wrong. It was submitted that even some of the questions were also wrong. 9. It has next been contended that the candidates only equal to 2.5 times number of vacancies calculated after conducting physical test were called for interview whereas those equal to 2.5 times number of vacancies from the successful candidates in written test should have been called as per the norms of the Commission. It has also been contended that though it has been clearly stated in Clause 11 of the Advertisement that if number of candidates who had applied for examination crosses forty thousand then there would be a preliminary test also. In the present case, though apparently the number of appearing candidates were more than forty thousand, no preliminary test has been held and all the candidates were directly allowed to appear in the main written examination. In the present case, though apparently the number of appearing candidates were more than forty thousand, no preliminary test has been held and all the candidates were directly allowed to appear in the main written examination. That apart, the entire procedure and the examination conducted by the Commission comes in question in view of the fact that the First Information Report had been lodged stating that several persons had access to the strong room of the Commission and they had tampered the OMR sheets(answer sheets) of the candidates. So far the final result of the examination is concerned it is urged that the same cannot be said to be held in accordance with the established procedure. It has been urged in C.W.J.C. No. 5135 of 2013 that, though there was no indication in the advertisement as to what would be the cut off marks for passing the interview held by the Commission, the same was fixed behind the scene and, thus, the final result would be in teeth of several judicial pronouncements including one in K. Manjusree Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and Another (AIR 2008 Supreme Court, 1470) in which the Apex Court has criticized setting up of cut off marks without notifying the same on earlier occasion, i.e., at the time of coming out with the advertisement. It is submitted that, in the present case, it was not done at all during course of the entire examination and some cut off marks for passing interview had been fixed arbitrarily behind the back. It is has been submitted on behalf of the petitioner in C.W.J.C. No. 3306 of 2013 that, though the petitioner has performed well in the interview, he has not been declared successful. 10. Counter affidavits have been filed in some of the cases by the Commission defending the procedure under which examinations were held and also the result that has been declared. 11. 10. Counter affidavits have been filed in some of the cases by the Commission defending the procedure under which examinations were held and also the result that has been declared. 11. So far the issue of the First Information Report having been lodged indicating that certain persons had access to the strong room and they were engaged in tampering with the OMR sheets of the examination is concerned, it has been stated in the counter affidavit that as soon as the examinations were over the answer-sheets and OMR sheets were received from different examination centres and the strong room was not located in the office of the Commissioner but all the answer books were kept in the strong room of BCECE Board Office, IAS Bhawan, near Airport, Patna, whereas, the F.I.R. has been lodged with respect to the strong room of the Commission?s building. So far the economic offence Police Station Case No. 23/2012 dated 20.10.2012 is concerned, as mentioned above the First Information Report was lodged on the basis of the statement of the accused/arrested persons and even after lapse of more than four months of its investigation by the police nothing adverse has been reported to the Commission indicating any illegality having been found with respect to the examination held pursuant to the Advertisement contained in Annexure 1. So far the question of declaring the result etc. on the basis of written examination is concerned it has been stated that only equal to 2.5 times number of the total vacancies under category-wise, as envisaged in the Circular of the Department of Government of Bihar concerned, were declared successful on 12.10.2012. However, later on the Commission realized that the physical test as envisaged in the Rule and advertisement is only of qualifying nature whereas the Government Circular is meant for interview to be taken by the Commission after consideration of the merit of the candidates in the examination, thus, it was decided to call five times candidates of total vacancy and, accordingly, result was published and the successful candidates were subjected to physical tests. Thereafter, from amongst the candidates declared successful on the basis of the written test and physical test, 2.5 times number of vacancies were called for interview as per the circular no. 2374 dated 16.04.2012 and finally 47 candidates of different categories were selected. 12. Thereafter, from amongst the candidates declared successful on the basis of the written test and physical test, 2.5 times number of vacancies were called for interview as per the circular no. 2374 dated 16.04.2012 and finally 47 candidates of different categories were selected. 12. So far the question of not holding the preliminary test is concerned, it is contended that not a single candidate had suffered on account of that as all the candidates who had applied and were found eligible, had been allowed to appear at the main written examination. That apart, notice to that effect was also published vide memo no. 2106 dated 10.05.2012 (Annexure 2 in C.W.J.C. No. 355 of 2013). That notice was not challenged by anybody. The fact that the candidates equal to 2.5 times number of vacancies would be called for interview after succeeding in the written test and physical test was also notified in the result concerned itself a copy of which has been appended as Annexure 8 to C.W.J.C. No. 355 of 2013, however, that was not challenged by anybody at that point of time. It is submitted that the aforesaid issues cannot be raised by the petitioners at this stage after having participated in the concerned examination but becoming unsuccessful in that. In support of the aforesaid submission, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission places reliance upon the decision of the Apex Court rendered in Dhananjay Malik and others Vs. State of Uttaranchal and others (2008(3) Patna Law Journal Reports (Supreme Court), 271) as well as Ramesh Chandra Sah and others Vs. Anil Joshi and others (2013(3) Supreme, 129). The Apex Court in the aforesaid decisions has held that unsuccessful candidates, after having taken part in the process of interview/test, cannot turn around and challenge the procedure itself as by participating in the selection process such candidates waive their right to challenge the process. 13. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that after receipt of the answer-sheets and OMR sheets from different centres the questions and model answers given by the question setters were put on website of the Commission inviting objections in given format within a specified time. Such notice was duly published in the newspaper. 13. It has further been stated in the counter affidavit that after receipt of the answer-sheets and OMR sheets from different centres the questions and model answers given by the question setters were put on website of the Commission inviting objections in given format within a specified time. Such notice was duly published in the newspaper. An expert committee was constituted consisting of professors of repute of different Universities and senior reputed lawyers of Patna High Court who have got specialization in the subject for scrutiny of all the questions and the model answers and also examining the objections received. After submission of the report by the Expert Committee, the report and the answer given by the setter were put before the Commission which came to the following conclusion:– “(i) The Commission decided to cancel the question No. 63, 72 and 95 because all the options given by the setter was found wrong by the Expert Committee. The evaluation was done on the basis of 97 questions. (ii) For question no. 19, 38 and 71 the answer given by the setter was D, A and B respectively which was changed to C, B and C respectively on the basis of report given by the expert committee.” 14. Accordingly, re-evaluation was done considerilng the corrected answer options and 97 correct questions. It is contended that the questions and answers having been corrected and re-evaluation having been done thereafter, now such issue cannot be raised by the petitioners otherwise it would be a never ending process and no result would be published. A proceeding has to be closed somewhere. 15. So far the issue of alleged existing incorrect model answers raised by the petitioners is concerned, learned counsel for the respondent-Commission has taken such question one by one to impress upon this Court that the stand taken by the Commission is correct. For example, it is contended with respect to the question no. 58 of General Knowledge/General Studies category that if the same is in consonance with the description given in the book ‘India 2012’ published by the publication division Government of India wherein it stands mentioned that in the State emblem, adopted by the Government of India on 26th January, 1950, only three lions are visible, the fourth being hidden from the view. 16. 16. Learned counsel for the respondent-Commission submits that seven after re-evaluation by the Expert Committee if such matters are allowed to be reopened then that would become a never ending process and the proceeding would not take a final shape. Learned counsel places reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in this regard rendered in Himachal Pradesh Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another [(2010(6) Supreme Court Cases, 759] holding that it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when State Public Service Commission had assessed inter se merit of the candidates. 17. In answer to the last question raised by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 5135 of 2013 regarding the cut off marks set in the interview, it is contended that it has been done in accordance with the Resolution dated 16.07.2007 of the Personnel and Administrative Department of the State of Bihar a copy of which had been produced by the respondent-Commission at the time of hearing. The Resolution clearly indicates that wherever and whenever interview is held, following qualifying marks would be mandatory for passing the same by any candidate:– General Candidates: 40% Backward Caste : 36% Backward Caste (Annexure I): 34% Scheduled Caste, Scheduled 32 %. Tribe and Female Candidate : Accordingly, the qualifying marks for the interview was set and results were published. 18. Per contra, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that similar issue had come up before this Court on earlier occasion also and in that case expert committee was constituted on the complaint of the writ petitioners with regard to the wrong answers given in the “model answer key”. It is contended that the matter travelled up to the Apex Court. The order of the High Court by which “model answer key” was referred to the expert committee which found several answers to be wrong, was upheld by the Supreme Court. 19. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is contended that this Court should also constitute an expert committee so that the few questions and answers be tested by the concerned committee and, thereafter, final result should again be published after revising it in accordance with the finding of the committee. 20. 19. On the basis of the aforesaid, it is contended that this Court should also constitute an expert committee so that the few questions and answers be tested by the concerned committee and, thereafter, final result should again be published after revising it in accordance with the finding of the committee. 20. On consideration of the rival contentions, in my considered opinion, the following questions emerge for consideration in these cases:– (I) Whether the examination concerned is bad for non-adherence of the established procedure? (II) If the allegation regarding few answers of “model answer key”, assumed to be correct whether that would vitiate the entire examination? (III) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the cases, this Court should also direct for re-scrutiny of the question and model answers as per the allegation of the petitioners? (IV) Whether non-disclosure of cut off marks/qualifying marks for interview in the advertisement would vitiate the entire examination? (V) Whether the marks given in the interview suffers from the vice of arbitrariness? 21. It is admitted fact that the preliminary test was not conducted and all the candidates, though the number exceeded forty thousand, were allowed to appear in the main written examination. In view of the fact that all the candidates were allowed to appear in the examination and notice to that effect was also published in the newspaper (Annexure 2 to C.W.J.C. No. 355 of 2013), in my considered opinion, this issue would not be available to the petitioners as, after having accepted the aforesaid procedure and having appeared at the examination, now they cannot be allowed to take a turn and question such issue after becoming unsuccessful. A reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah and others (supra). 22. Similar fate would be of the issue raised by the petitioners regarding calling the candidates for interview equal to 2.5 times number of the vacancies who have been declared successful in written test. A reference in this regard is made to the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Chandra Shah and others (supra). 22. Similar fate would be of the issue raised by the petitioners regarding calling the candidates for interview equal to 2.5 times number of the vacancies who have been declared successful in written test. Another reason for discarding the ground would be that it has been clearly stated in the counter affidavit filed on behalf of the respondent-Commission that about five times of the total vacancies the candidates who had become successful in the written examination were put on physical test and, after clearing the physical test, the candidates equal to 2.5 times the number of vacancies were called for interview for the reason that the physical test was merely of qualifying nature but qualifying such test would be mandatory for any candidate for appointment on the post of Enforcement Sub-Inspector. Therefore, the decision of the respondent-Commission to put five times candidates to the number of the vacancies to physical test and, subsequent thereto, calling the candidates equal to 2.5 times number of the vacancies for interview from amongst the candidates who were declared successful in the physical test, cannot be faulted with. 23. So far the issue of cut off marks of the interview is concerned, since that had already been declared in the Resolution dated 16.07.2007 such stands, in my opinion, would not be available to the writ petitioners. 24. The main and core issue which is to be tested in these writ applications is as to whether some of the questions and the model answers are wrong and whether in such case this Court should direct the respondent-Commission again to get such questions and model answers scrutinized by another Expert Committee? 25. In my considered opinion, that would not be required now in view of the fact that the respondent-Commission itself had invited objections regarding wrong questions and “model answer key” after the result of the written examination and, after receiving the objections, an expert committee re-evaluated not only such questions and answers rather all the questions that were asked for General Knowledge/General Studies and technical papers. After such report a decision had been taken by the respondent-Commission by deleting certain questions and correcting wrong answers. Both the sides have produced some books etc. After such report a decision had been taken by the respondent-Commission by deleting certain questions and correcting wrong answers. Both the sides have produced some books etc. in support of their respective contentions as to what should be the correct answers of such questions. 26. In my opinion, re-scrutiny by another committee cannot be ordered for another reason also as for that purpose this Court will have to examine as to whether the answers, even after re-assessment by the expert committee and thereafter, final decision taken by the respondent-Commission, are correct or not. In my opinion, this Court cannot substitute itself as an examiner and re-assess the questions and answers specially when the same has already been done by the expert committee. A reference in this regard is made to a decision of the Apex Court in Himachal Pradesh Service Commission (supra). Relevant passage from the aforesaid decision is reproduced as under for better appreciation:– “20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” 27. It is also correct that the Apex Court in its another decision in Rajesh Kumar and others Vs. State of Bihar and others [(2013) 4 Supreme Court Cases, 690] has upheld the decision of this Court of constituting a committee of two experts as several answers were found to be wrong and that committee in its report had stated that 41 model answers out of 100 were wrong. However, in the present case, the stand of the petitioners regarding wrong answers is being disputed by the respondent-Commission and the number of wrong answers are also not as significant as those were in the aforesaid case. However, in the present case, the stand of the petitioners regarding wrong answers is being disputed by the respondent-Commission and the number of wrong answers are also not as significant as those were in the aforesaid case. That apart, it has already been noticed that the respondent-Commission itself, after the written examination, had invited objections and constituted a committee of expert which had evaluated not only the objections raised with regard to certain questions but the entire questions and answers of the concerned examination as being claimed by the Commission. Three questions were found incorrect and they were deleted and markings were made with respect to only 97 questions and not 100 questions. The wrong answers were rectified and, thereafter, re-evaluation was already done. Such was, admittedly, not the situation in Rajesh Kumar and others (supra) as learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that in that case also an expert committee was constituted by the Commission and even after getting the questions and answers were scrutinised by the expert committee, a Bench of this Court had constituted an expert committee for another scrutiny. 28. Dealing with the similar issue with regard to the wrong question and “model answer key”, after being reviewed by the committee of experts and the remedial measures having been taken by the Commission as suggested by the committee of experts, a Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 19.06.2013 in L.P.A. No. 98 of 2013 (Lokpal and others Vs. Bihar Staff Selection Commission and others) and analogous matters, has held as under:– “We are afraid, we are unable to agree with the aforesaid arguments advanced by Mr. Abhinav Shrivastava and adopted by the learned advocates Mr. Sanjeet Kumar and Mr. Kamla Kant Tiwari. Once the question papers and the answer key were reviewed by the committee of experts and the remedial measures were taken by Commission as suggested by the committee of experts, we have no reason to interfere with the result of the Preliminary Examination. Further, we do not suppose that the result of the Preliminary Examination affecting more than 27000 candidates should be vitiated or invalidated at the instance of a few hundred candidates.” 29. Further, we do not suppose that the result of the Preliminary Examination affecting more than 27000 candidates should be vitiated or invalidated at the instance of a few hundred candidates.” 29. It has been urged on behalf of one of the intervenors that none of the writ petitioners had pleaded that they had attempted such questions correctly, however, they have not been given marks in view of the incorrect answer reflected in the “model answer key”. In the above view of the matter also, it would be difficult for this Court to entertain such question at this stage at the behest of few unsuccessful candidates when the entire process had ended and final results have been published. 30. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance upon a decision of the Apex Court in Government of Karnataka and others Vs. Gowramma and others (AIR 2008 Supreme Court, 863) as well as the decision rendered in Himachal Pradesh Service Commission (supra) to impress upon this Court that the decisions of the Apex Court, as relied by the respondents, would not constitute a binding precedent. However, in my view, the aforesaid decisions would be binding precedent in view of the fact that the issues appear to be identical. 31. Coming to the issue raised by the petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 3306 of 2013, learned counsel has not been able to demonstrate any error or discrimination in the marks given in interview. A stand that he had obtained good marks in written examination but has been given low marks in interview would not be tenable as the yardsticks of marking may be different for written and interview. 32. So far Economic Offence P.S. Case No. 23 of 2012 is concerned, the petitioners have not been able to show that OMR sheets of the concerned examination have been found to be tampered with as per the allegation. Commission has taken a stand that the answer-sheets were not kept at Commission’s Strong Room rather were kept in the Strong Room of B.C.E.C.E. Board Office, I.A.S. Bhawan. The writ petitioners, at the time of hearing, have not raised this issue seriously. 33. Accordingly, all the issues stand decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents and it is held that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in the results declared the examination concerned. 34. The writ petitioners, at the time of hearing, have not raised this issue seriously. 33. Accordingly, all the issues stand decided against the petitioners and in favour of the respondents and it is held that the petitioners have not been able to make out any case warranting interference by this Court in the results declared the examination concerned. 34. As a result, these writ petitions are dismissed. All the interim reliefs granted to the petitioners stand vacated.