ORDER Kemkar, J. -- 1. Writ Appeal No.692/2014 has been filed against the order dated 15.7.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court in Writ Petition No.11011/2013. Writ Appeal No.693/2014 has been filed against the order dated 16.7.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Review Petition No.182/2014, declining to review the interim order dated 8.5.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.11011/2013, by which the learned Single Judge had ordered to constitute an Expert Committee. Writ Appeal No.709/2014 is directed against the order dated 14.8.2014 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.5973/2014, declining the similar benefit to the appellant, which was granted in favour of writ petitioner of Writ Petition No.11011/2013. For the sake of convenience, facts are taken from Writ Appeal No.692/2014 arising out of Writ Petition No.11011/2013. 2. Briefly stated, the appellant – MP Public Service Commission (for short, PSC) conducted Preliminary Examination for recruitment in the State Civil Services in the year 2013. According to the first respondent (writ petitioner), she had appeared in the examination and secured 290 marks. The cut-off marks fixed by the PSC were 292 marks. The case of the first respondent was that though she had correctly answered the question No.62, by answering as option ‘D’, but because of wrong model answer, she was illegally not awarded two marks for the said question No.62 and because of non-grant of 2 marks, she could not secure requisite 292 marks. 3. The learned Single Judge vide interim order dated 8.5.2014 directed the State Government to constitute an Expert Committee for giving its opinion as to what is the correct answer to question No.62, by observing that “in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case and in order to ensure that the marks are required to have been awarded properly, the Committee is first required to be constituted”. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid interim order passed by the learned Single Judge, an Expert Committee was constituted by the State Government. The Committee submitted its report before the writ Court stating therein that the correct answer of question No.62 is option ‘D’, as claimed by the respondent (writ petitioner). 5. On the basis of the report submitted by the Expert Committee, the writ Court passed final order holding that the first respondent is entitled for two marks for question No.62. The Committee submitted its report before the writ Court stating therein that the correct answer of question No.62 is option ‘D’, as claimed by the respondent (writ petitioner). 5. On the basis of the report submitted by the Expert Committee, the writ Court passed final order holding that the first respondent is entitled for two marks for question No.62. However, the benefit of two marks regarding question No.62 was granted only to the petitioner on the ground that as she was vigilant in the matter, she is entitled for the benefit of two additional marks, and therefore, the question of extending the relief to other candidates in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, does not arise. Feeling aggrieved, the PSC had filed this appeal. 6. From the pleadings of the parties, it is revealed that in order to fill up total 400 posts of various departments of the State Government, the PSC had issued an advertisement. As per the advertisement, 3,95,649 applications were received. The question paper and model answers were prepared by the Subject Experts. After the examination was conducted in order to avoid any grievances about the questions and the key answers, as per the decision taken by the PSC, the questions and key answers were put on the official website of the PSC, directing/requesting the candidates to submit their representations along with the proved and authentic references in respect of discrepancy in framing question and model answer key of the paper of the examination within ten days of the publication of the notice mentioning therein that after expiry of ten days, no representation in respect of the question and key answer paper shall be entertained. 7. On the basis of the aforesaid notice published on the website, PSC had received 551 representations. The said representations were placed by the PSC before the duly constituted Committee of ‘Senior Subject Experts’. The Committee so constituted by the PSC examined the question papers and model answer key and made recommendation about two questions in General Studies First Paper and three questions in General Aptitude Second Paper and eight answers in Model Answer Key of General Studies First Paper and one answer in Model Answer Key of General Studies Aptitude Second Paper. The amendment as per the report of the ‘Senior Subject Experts’ was again published on 22.4.2013. The amendment as per the report of the ‘Senior Subject Experts’ was again published on 22.4.2013. On the basis of the said recommendations of the Committee, the PSC, while declaring the result, granted bonus marks to all the candidates in respect of wrong questions and prepared an amended answer key. After all these rituals being done, the first respondent/petitioner had filed the writ petition on 17.9.2013. 8. According to Shri V.P. Khare, learned counsel for the appellant / PSC, in order to avoid grievances, the PSC had constituted a Committee of ‘Senior Subject Expert’ which had examined the grievances of the candidates about the questions and model key answers and had already submitted its report which was duly acted upon on 22.4.2013, it was not open for the writ Court to have entertained the writ petition which was filed belatedly on 17.9.2013 and to order appointment of another Expert Committee. He argued that when there is no provision for revaluation in the Madhya Pradesh State Services Examination Rules, 2008 (for short Rules, 2008), the order of the writ Court was not justified. 9. He also argued that the learned Single Judge has committed error in ignoring the orders passed by the co-ordinate bench in the case of Satish Kumar Dwivedi v. M.P. Public Service Commission and another Writ Petition No.13632/2013 decided on 10.9.2013 at Principal Seat, Indra Kumar Dwivedi v. M.P. Public Service Commission and another Writ Petition No.11370/2013 decided on 10.9.2013 at Principal Seat, Ku. Ananta Soni v. M.P. Public Service Commission and two others Writ Petition No.9202/2013 decided on 30.9.2013 at Indore Bench and the order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in Ku. Ananta Soni v. M.P. Public Service Commission Writ Appeal No.964/2013. He submits that in these cases (supra) also the dispute about answer of question No.62 was raised but no relief was granted by this Court to any of the writ petitioner and the writ petitions, as also the writ appeal, as aforesaid, were dismissed. After dismissal of various matters, the writ petition was filed and then the interim order of constitution of Committee was passed on 8.5.2014. 10. After dismissal of various matters, the writ petition was filed and then the interim order of constitution of Committee was passed on 8.5.2014. 10. Shri Umesh Gajankush, learned counsel appearing for the first respondent has supported the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge and has contended that since the Expert Committee has found the answer to question No.62 given by the first respondent to be correct, the writ Court has rightly directed the PSC to allot two more marks to the first respondent. He placed reliance on the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Chanchal Modi v. State of M.P. 2014 (3) MPLJ 84 and Ajay Kumar Gupta v. High Court of M.P. 2012 (3) MPHT 502 to contend that this Court on earlier occasions in similar set of facts had interferred in the matter. 11. We have considered the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties. 12. Before dealing with the question involved in these appeals, it would be appropriate to consider the various judgments on the issue. 13. A Division Bench of this Court in the case of Ku. Radhika d/o Vinay Kumar Dubey and others v. Professional Examination Education Board, Bhopal and another [2012 (4) MPLJ 388] after considering various judgments of High Court and Supreme Court held that the Court should not interfere in matters involving academic expertise. It would not be right for the Court to sit in judgment over the decision of the University relating to the academic question because it is not a matter on which the Court possesses any expertise. It is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally are. 14. The Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth and others [ AIR 1984 SC 1543 ] was pleased to observe in paragraphs 27 and 29 as observed thus : - “27. .. Further, it is in the public interest that the result of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. .. Further, it is in the public interest that the result of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. 29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass-root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court, while deciding the instant case.” 15. In the case of Pramod Kumar Shrivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others AIR 2004 SC 4116 , it has been held by the Supreme Court that in the absence of any provision or rules for re-evaluation of answer books, no candidate would have right to seek revaluation of the answer books. In the case of Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and another [ (2004) 13 SCC 383 ], a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 has observed thus :- “6. In the case of Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and another [ (2004) 13 SCC 383 ], a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in paragraph 6 has observed thus :- “6. The High Court though observed that the writ petitioner who has taken the examination is hardly a competent person to assess his own merit and on that basis claim for re-evaluation of papers, but issued the aforesaid direction in order to eliminate the possibility of injustice on account of marginal variation in marks. It is an admitted position that the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa do not make any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books of the students. The question whether in absence of any provision to that effect an examinee is entitled to ask for reevaluation of his answer-books has been examined by us in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission (2004) 6 SCC 714 decided on 6.8.2004. It has been held therein that in absence of rules providing for reevaluation of answer-books, no such direction can be issued. It has been further held that in absence of clear rules on the subject, a direction for re-evaluation of the answer-books may throw many problems and in the larger public interest such a direction must be avoided. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court directing for re-evaluation of the answer books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks is clearly unsustainable in law and must be set aside.” 16. So far as the order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in Chanchal Modi v. State of M.P. (supra) relied upon by the respondent, the same has been stayed by the Supreme Court vide order dated 18.7.2014 in SLP No.15976-15977/2014 filed at the instance of PSC. So far as the order passed in the case of Ajay Kumar Gupta v. High Court of M.P. (supra), in our considered view, it is of no help to the respondent in the facts of the present case, as in this case, the PSC after the examination had already got the questions and model answers to be re-examined on the basis of representations of the candidates from a Committee of ‘Senior Subject Experts’ and therefore, ignoring the same, the writ Court ordered for formation of yet another Expert Committee. 17. 17. Undisputedly, under the Rules, 2008, there is no provision for revaluation, therefore, keeping in view the aforesaid legal position as also the fact that prior to declaration of the result, the PSC had constituted a Committee of ‘Senior Subject Expert’, which Committee after consideration of the representations received from the candidates submitted its report, the order for constitution of yet another Committee by the writ Court on the first respondent’s prayer was not justified, as allowing of such a request would lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty leading to utter confusion. This uncertainty could not have put to an end by the writ Court by restricting the relief only to the writ petitioner. The reasons assigned by the writ Court restricting benefit of two additional marks only to the writ petitioner also cannot be said to be justified. Therefore, in our considered view, the order of the writ Court directing to award two marks to the first respondent on the basis of report received from the Committee constituted by it, cannot be sustained. 18. As we have held that the very order of the learned Single Judge for constituting an Expert Committee to be not justified and being contrary to the decisions of the Supreme Court, no benefit on the basis of report of such Committee can be extended to the first respondent. In the circumstances, the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge cannot be sustained. The same deserves to be and is hereby set aside. The writ appeal is allowed. 19. As a result, Writ Appeal No.693/2014 also stands disposed of. 20. Since we have set aside the order passed in Writ Petition No.11011/2013, the order passed in Writ Petition No.5973/2014 does not survive, consequently the Writ Appeal No.709/2014 also stands disposed of in terms of this order. 21. No orders as to the costs.