Order The petitioner has approached this court in the present proceeding under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a direction to the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission (in short “BPSC”) to delete question No.119 of Question Booklet Series “D” of Law Paper of Assistant Prosecution Officer (preliminary) Competitive Examination, 2011 and to reconsider and re-fix cut off marks for publication of result of the successful candidates of the said examination. 2. It is admitted case of the parties that Advertisement No. 42 of 2011 was published by the respondent-BPSC for filling up 80 posts of Assistant Prosecution Officer through competitive Examination. The aforesaid examination was to be conducted in two stages, i.e., Preliminary Examination and Main Examination. The Preliminary Examination (Test) was to be conducted only of two papers namely, General Studies of 100 marks and Law paper of 150 marks. The questions were to be of objective type, having multiple choice, and candidates were required to tick mark/select only one correct answer which according to him/her, was the best and answer-sheets were to be on OMR sheet. 3. It is also an admitted case of the parties that the Preliminary Test of the eligible candidates was conducted on 30.03.2014 at the notified examination centres. The petitioner, being also an applicant for the said examination, appeared in the aforesaid Preliminary Test held on 30.03.2014. 4. As per the case of the respondent BPSC, in order to prevent plagiarism/unfairmeans by the candidates, the question papers of General Studies as also the Law were printed in A, B, C, D Series. In all the Series of the question booklets, the questions were the same and common, but were jumbled having different serial number. It was arranged in such a manner that sequence of each question of one Series varied from other Series. It is also the case of the respondent BPSC that as per its past practice, the model answers/key answers to the questions, set by the question setters, were published in the News Papers and were also uploaded on the official website of the respondent BPSC on 05.04.2014 inviting objections/suggestions from the candidates, so that necessary corrections with respect to the model answers, if need be, were made before the final publication of the result of the aforesaid Preliminary Examination. The last date for receipt of objections was 21.04.2014. 5. The last date for receipt of objections was 21.04.2014. 5. As per case of the writ petitioner, he has secured 179 marks, out of total marks 250, in both General Studies and Law Paper. It is pointed out that respondent-BPSC had fixed 180 marks as cut-off marks for general category candidates. Therefore, when the result of Preliminary Test was published on 28.06.2014, the petitioner was not declared successful for the purposes of appearing in the Main Examination, as he was short by one mark. 6. The grievance/claim of the petitioner is that in Law Paper of Question Booklet Series “D”, all options of Question No. 119 were incorrect and, therefore, that question is required to be deleted and the answer-sheets of all the candidates are required to be re-evaluated. For better appreciation, Question No. 119 of Booklet Series “D” of Law Paper is reproduced hereinbelow: “119. The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 became operative from the date of (A) 9th December, 1881 (B) 31st December, 1881 (C) 1st March, 1881 (D) 31st March, 1881” 7. It is to be noted here that Question No.119 of Booklet Series “D” of Law Paper was also the question in other Booklet Series “A”, “B” and “C” of Law Paper, but were having different serial numbers. Therefore, according to the petitioner, answer-sheets of all the candidates of Law Paper having Booklet Series A, B, C and D are required to be re-evaluated. 8. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner has submitted that all the four options given in the answer-sheet with respect of Question No.119 of Booklet Series “D” are palpably and patently wrong. According to him, The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 came into force on the first day of March, 1882, as per provision contained in Section 1 of the aforesaid Act, but none of the options given in Question Booklet Series “D” mentions1st March, 1882 as the date when aforesaid Act became operative. It is contended that if that question is excluded/deleted, then the respondent BPSC is required to re-fix the cut-off marks as the total marks shall be reduced and thereafter the petitioner may be declared successful for the purpose of appearing in the Main Examination, which is yet to be notified. It is contended that if that question is excluded/deleted, then the respondent BPSC is required to re-fix the cut-off marks as the total marks shall be reduced and thereafter the petitioner may be declared successful for the purpose of appearing in the Main Examination, which is yet to be notified. In support of his above contention, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the judgments of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Kanpur University through Vice Chancellor Vs. Samir Gupta [ AIR 1983 SC 1230 = (1983) 4 SCC 309 ], Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board Vs. Chandan Mishra [1995 supp. (3) SCC 77], State of Orissa Vs. Prajnaparamita Samanta [(1996) 7SCC 106] and Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar [ (2013) 4 SCC 690 ]. 9. The matter has been contested primarily by the respondent BPSC, though the State of Bihar is also represented through its counsel. 10. Learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent BPSC has strongly opposed the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner in the present Writ Petition. According to him, the present Writ Petition is not maintainable at this stage. It is contended that the petitioner has not come with clean hands and has not stated anywhere that he had attempted the disputed question rather he has suppressed the fact that he had attempted the disputed question no. 119 of Booklet Series “D”. It is next contended that the petitioner had not submitted his objection with respect to model answer of Question No.119 of Booklet Series “D” despite opportunity having been given to him by the respondent BPSC. Therefore, according to the learned senior counsel, the petitioner cannot be permitted to raise such plea at this stage. It is also contended that an Expert Body was constituted by the respondent BPSC and model answers/key answers of all the questions and all the objections submitted by other candidates were examined by the Expert Body and on their recommendation, three questions were excluded/deleted for the purposes of evaluation. So far as Question No.119 is concerned, the Expert Body had not made any adverse report. Therefore, this Question No. 119 had to be treated as valid and answer-sheets of the candidates were evaluated and result was, accordingly, published. 11. So far as Question No.119 is concerned, the Expert Body had not made any adverse report. Therefore, this Question No. 119 had to be treated as valid and answer-sheets of the candidates were evaluated and result was, accordingly, published. 11. The learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent BPSC strongly pleads that as no objection was raised by the petitioner with respect to Question No.119 of Booklet Series “D” therefore, the result published by the respondent BPSC is binding upon him. In support of his above contention, he has placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in the case of Lokpal Vs. Bihar Staff Selection Commission [ 2013(4) PLJR 255 ] and one unreported Division Bench judgment of this Court dated 22.07.2014 rendered in LPA No. 784 of 2014 (Bihar Combined Entrance Competitive Examination Board Vs. Nitish Kumar). 12. After having heard the parties and on consideration of the materials on record, this Court finds that the entire dispute in the present proceeding rests only with respect to Question No. 119 of Booklet Series “D” of Law Paper and its equivalent question number of Booklet Series “A” “B” and “C” The issue regarding interference by the High Court or the Hon’ble Supreme Court with respect to re-evaluation of the answer-sheets, if model answers/key answers are wrong, has been set at rest by the judicial pronouncement of Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases of Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta (supra), Convenor, MBBS/BDS Selection Board Vs. Chandan Mishra (supra) as also State of Orissa Vs. Prajnaparamita Samanta (supra). 13. It is well settled that if there is serious dispute about the correctness or otherwise of the options given in the question paper with respect to a particular question, then the matter is required to be examined by an Expert Committee and on the basis of the report/recommendation submitted by the Expert Committee, the matter has to be proceeded further by the examining body. In the present case also, so far the other questions are concerned, it is pleaded by the respondent BPSC that an Expert Committee was constituted and on the basis of the report of the said Expert Committee, certain questions were excluded/deleted for the purposes of evaluation of the answer-sheets of all the candidates. In the present case also, so far the other questions are concerned, it is pleaded by the respondent BPSC that an Expert Committee was constituted and on the basis of the report of the said Expert Committee, certain questions were excluded/deleted for the purposes of evaluation of the answer-sheets of all the candidates. However, so far as Question No.119 of Booklet Series “D” is concerned, four options were given in the said question paper, but there was no adverse/contrary report by the said Expert Committee. Therefore, this question was not excluded/deleted for the purposes of evaluation. 14. Now coming to the question No. 119 of Booklet Series “D” or the equivalent question number of Booklet Series “A”, “B” and “C”, this Court finds that this relates to Law Paper, particularly, regarding the date of coming into operation of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881. Any student of law by simply looking into Section 1 of The Negotiable Instruments Act, 1881 can find out that when this Act came into force. Relevant portion of Section 1 of the aforesaid Act mandates that it shall come into force on first day of March, 1882”. The four options given in the Booklet Series “D” are 9th December, 1881, 31st December, 1881, 1st March, 1881 and 31st Mach, 1881. Obviously, none of the options is correct. For coming to the aforesaid conclusion, report of an Expert Body/Committee is not at all required. The options are so palpably, demonstrably, patently and admittedly wrong that there is no necessity to constitute any Expert Committee for the said purpose. Despite repeated query, it was not convassed by the learned senior counsel appearing for the BPSC that any of options given with respect to Question No. 119 is correct. The sun rises in east does not require further probe. It is an established truth. The present case falls under that ambit. Therefore, there is no escape but to hold that all the options given in Question No.119 were wrong and hence, this question is/was fit to be excluded/deleted for the purpose of evaluation of the answer-sheets of all the candidates including the petitioner. 15. It is an established truth. The present case falls under that ambit. Therefore, there is no escape but to hold that all the options given in Question No.119 were wrong and hence, this question is/was fit to be excluded/deleted for the purpose of evaluation of the answer-sheets of all the candidates including the petitioner. 15. So far the issue regarding non-filing of objection by the petitioner with respect to model/key answer of Question No. 119 of Booklet Series “D”, despite opportunity given by the respondent BPSC, this Court finds that there is no such statutory provisions for inviting objections by the respondent BPSC from the candidates with respect to model/key answer, rather this practice is being followed by the respondent BPSC for convenience for last some time. On this account, the petitioner cannot be estopped from raising the issue for deletion/exclusion of Question No. 119 of Booklet Series “D” for the purposes of evaluation of the answer-sheets on the ground that all the options given therein are patently and palpably wrong. In absence of violation or non-compliance of any statutory provision, the submissions made on behalf of the respondent BPSC are misconceived and are, accordingly, rejected. 16. For the reasons recorded above, the respondent BPSC is directed to exclude Question No. 119 of Booklet Series “D” and equivalent question of Booklet Series “A”, “B” and “C” of Law Paper and thereafter re-evaluate the OMR answer-sheets of all the candidates including the petitioner and publish the result of Assistant Prosecution Officer (Preliminary) Competitive Examination, 2011 afresh. In view of the fact that one question has been directed to be omitted, resultantly total marks stands reduced, the BPSC shall consider for re-fixing the cut-off marks for declaring the candidates successful for the purposes of appearing in the Main examination. Thereafter, it shall proceed to fix the date for holding main examination and proceed further accordingly. 17. The writ petition stands allowed with the observations and directions made above, but the parties are left to bear their own costs.