JUDGMENT Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice All these writ petitions are disposed of by a common judgment as common questions of law and facts are involved. 2. The respondent-H.P. Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as “the Commission”) issued advertisement notice No. IV/2013, dated 1st January, 2014 (Annexure P-1), for filling up seven vacancies of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service, Class-I (Gazetted). The desirous candidates applied and the preliminary examination was conducted on 15th June, 2014, in terms of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service Rules, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 1973”) read with the Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Procedure & Transaction of Business and Procedure for the conduct of Examinations, Screening Tests & Interviews Etc.) Rules, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as the “Rules of 2007”). The answer key was displayed on the website on 19th June, 2014, and seven days' time was given for raising objections. 3. It appears that thereafter, some of the candidates filed their objections, were considered by the respondent-Commission by referring the matter to the Expert Committee, the result was prepared by the Examiners after taking note of the Expert's opinion and result was declared by the Commission on 9th September, 2014. 4. The petitioners have questioned the same on the grounds taken in the memo of respective writ petitions. 5. The respondent-Commission has filed replies in CWPs No. 6812, 6938, 7018, 7095 & 7105 of 2014 and stated that reply filed in CWP No. 6812 of 2014 be treated as reply in CWPs No. 7280, 7298 & 7336 of 2014, 9169 of 2013 also. 6. The respondents have taken a specific stand that the preliminary examination is no examination, it is just a screening and sort of filtration, the petitioners have no right to question the same and the Rules of 1973 & Rules of 2007 no where provide for having revaluation or rechecking. 6. The respondents have taken a specific stand that the preliminary examination is no examination, it is just a screening and sort of filtration, the petitioners have no right to question the same and the Rules of 1973 & Rules of 2007 no where provide for having revaluation or rechecking. Further, though the Rules do not provide for the same, however, in terms of Clause 7 (B) (i) of Chapter V of the Rules of 2007, before examining the question papers and declaring the result, objections were invited from the candidates within seven days from the date when the answer key was displayed on the website; some of the candidates, including few petitioners, have filed objections, were considered and referred to Experts, after examining the objections, the Experts submitted their opinion, some mistakes were found in the key and after noticing the Expert opinion, the Examiners examined the papers and the result was declared. 7. It would be profitable to reproduce the relevant portions of the replies filed by the respondent-Commission in the respective petitions: CWP No. 6812 of 2014: “Paras 3 to 9: According to the prevailing instructions of the Commission, the Answer Key(s) were displayed on the Official Website after conclusion of the Examination on 19-06-2014 and the objections were invited from the candidates for wrong Answer, if any by 25-06-2014. The Commission received some of the objections to the Answer key, which were placed before the Expert Committee for taking their opinion. According to the opinion rendered by the Expert Committee, the result of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination- 2013 was declared on 09-09-2014. The question paper-II of Aptitude Test has been prepared strictly in accordance with the prescribed syllabus which is evident from the Advertisement No. 4/2013 annexed by the Petitioners as Annexure P-1 at Page-27 of the CWP under item No. 6 “SCHEME OF EXAMINATION” Clause-B i.e. Syllabus of Paper-II “Interpersonal skills including communication skills”. Some of the candidates also objected that the question Nos. 36 to 55 of Booklet series 'D' (Questions No. 16 to 35 of Booklet Series 'A') are from expert field of psychology subject. The similar objection of the candidates were also placed before the Expert Committee, who opined that these questions are under graduate standards and are of general nature. The questions are based on the standard books of psychology at under graduate level”. The similar objection of the candidates were also placed before the Expert Committee, who opined that these questions are under graduate standards and are of general nature. The questions are based on the standard books of psychology at under graduate level”. As such the plea taken by the Petitioners is baseless and has no weight.” “Paras 5 to 12: That according to the prevailing instructions of the Commission, the Answer Key(s) were displayed on the Official Website after conclusion of the Examination on 19-06-2014 and the objections were invited from the candidates for wrong Answer, if any by 25-06-2014. The Commission received some of the objections to the Answer key, which were placed before the Expert Committee for taking their opinion. According to the opinion rendered by the Expert Committee, the result of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination- 2013 was declared on 09-09-2014. Both the question papers-I & II i.e. General Studies & Aptitude Test have been prepared strictly in accordance with the prescribed syllabus which is evident from the Advertisement No. 4/2013 annexed by the Petitioners as Annexure P-1 at Page-17 of the CWP under item No. 6 “SCHEME OF EXAMINATION” Clause-B i.e. Syllabus of Paper-I & II. The objections of the candidates were placed before the Expert Committee, who opined that these questions are all under graduate standards and are of general nature. The questions are based on the standard books of psychology at under graduate level”. As such the plea taken by the Petitioners is baseless and has no weight. It is further submitted that the Replying Respondent Commission had taken all questions objected by the candidates to correct the key answers before evaluating OMR answers sheets as submitted herein above in preliminary submissions. Since 4 questions in each paper were scrapped by the Key-Committees, it was decided by the Commission to count the total marks for each paper as 192 instead of 200. This exercise had caused no prejudice to any one as the same pattern has been applied uniformly to all the appearing candidates. Since 4 questions in each paper were scrapped by the Key-Committees, it was decided by the Commission to count the total marks for each paper as 192 instead of 200. This exercise had caused no prejudice to any one as the same pattern has been applied uniformly to all the appearing candidates. According to the opinion rendered by the Expert Committee, the result of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination-2013 was declared on 09-09-2014 on the basis of revised answer key which is annexed as R-II.” CWP No. 7018 of 2014: “Paras 5 to 9: According to the prevailing instructions of the Commission, the Answer Key(s) were displayed on the Official Website after conclusion of the Examination on 19-06-2014 and the objections were invited from the candidates for wrong Answer, if any by 25-06-2014. The Commission received some of the objections to the Answer key, which were placed before the Expert Committee for taking their opinion. According to the opinion rendered by the Expert Committee, the result of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination- 2013 was declared on 09-09-2014. The question paper-II of Aptitude Test has been prepared strictly in accordance with the prescribed syllabus which is evident from the Advertisement No. 4/2013 annexed by the Petitioner as Annexure P-1 at Page-14 of the CWP under item No. 6 “SCHEME OF EXAMINATION” Clause-B i.e. Syllabus of Paper-II “Interpersonal skills including communication skills”. Some of the candidates also objected that the question Nos. 51 to 70 of Booklet series 'C' (Questions No. 16 to 35 of Booklet Series 'A') are from expert field of psychology subject. The similar objections of the candidates were also placed before the Expert Committee, who opined that these questions are all under graduate standards and are of general nature. The questions are based on the standard books of psychology at under graduate level”. As such the plea taken by the Petitioners is baseless and has no weight.” CWP No. 7095 of 2014: “Paras 4 to 9: According to the prevailing instructions of the Commission, the Answer Key(s) were displayed on the Official Website after conclusion of the Examination on 19-06-2014 and the objections were invited from the candidates for wrong Answer, if any by 25-06-2014. The Commission received some of the objections to the Answer key, which were placed before the Expert Committee for taking their opinion. The Commission received some of the objections to the Answer key, which were placed before the Expert Committee for taking their opinion. According to the opinion rendered by the Expert Committee, the result of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination- 2013 was declared on 09-09-2014. The question paper-II of Aptitude Test has been prepared strictly in accordance with the prescribed syllabus which is evident from the Advertisement No. 4/2013 annexed by the Petitioner as Annexure P-1 at Page-20 of the CWP under item No. 6 “SCHEME OF EXAMINATION” Clause-B i.e. Syllabus of Paper-II “Interpersonal skills including communication skills”. Some of the candidates also objected that the question Nos. 36 to 55 of Booklet series 'D' (Questions No. 16 to 35 of Booklet Series 'A') and Booklet series 'C' (Questions No. 51 to 70) are from expert field of psychology subject. The similar objection of the candidates were also placed before the Expert Committee, who opined that these questions are under graduate standards and are of general nature. The questions are based on the standard books of psychology at under graduate level”. As such the plea taken by the Petitioners is baseless and has no weight. Para-10: That the Replying Respondent Commission had taken all questions objected by the candidates to correct the key answers before evaluating OMR answers sheets as submitted herein above in the preliminary submissions. Since 4 questions in each paper were scrapped by the Key-Committees, it was decided by the Commission to count the total marks for each paper as 192 instead of 200. This exercise had caused no prejudice to any one as the same pattern has been applied uniformly to all the appearing candidates. According to the opinion rendered by the Expert Committee, the result of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination-2013 was declared on 09-09-2014 on the basis of revised answer key which is annexed as R-II. Para-11 to 12: ….................. Para-13 to 15: Denied. The respondent Commission has associated different Experts from different fields of the subjects concerned and asked them to examine thoroughly the disputed questions objected by the candidates. The two key committees constituted for paper-I and paper-II were asked to furnish the correct key answers to the respondent Commission and then the answer sheets were evaluated on the basis of revised key answers. The two key committees constituted for paper-I and paper-II were asked to furnish the correct key answers to the respondent Commission and then the answer sheets were evaluated on the basis of revised key answers. In case, if there were more than one probable answers to any question, the Replying Respondent considered both the answers for such questions. It is also submitted that the Respondent Commission has taken utmost care and caution at every steps of selection including setting up of question papers, rechecking of key answers by Experts and proper evaluation of OMR answer sheets of all the candidates.” CWP No. 7105 of 2014: “Paras 9 to 21 (I to IX): According to the prevailing instructions of the Commission, the Answer Key(s) were displayed on the Official Website after conclusion of the Examination on 19-06-2014 and the objections were invited from the candidates for wrong Answer, if any by 25-06-2014. The Commission received some of the objections to the Answer key, which were placed before the Expert Committee for taking their opinion. According to the opinion rendered by the Expert Committee, the result of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination- 2013 was declared on 09-09-2014. The question paper-II of Aptitude Test has been prepared strictly in accordance with the prescribed syllabus which is evident from the Advertisement No. 4/2013 annexed by the Petitioner as Annexure P-1 at Page-30 of the CWP under item No. 6 “SCHEME OF EXAMINATION” Clause-B i.e. Syllabus of Paper-II “Interpersonal skills including communication skills”. Some of the candidates also objected that the question Nos. 36 to 55 of Booklet series 'D' (Questions No. 16 to 35 of Booklet Series 'A') and Booklet series 'C' (Question No. 51 to 70) are from expert field of psychology subject. The similar objection of the candidates were also placed before the Expert Committee, who opined that these questions are under graduate standards and are of general nature. The questions are based on the standard books of psychology at under graduate level”. As such the plea taken by the Petitioners is baseless and has no weight. The Replying Respondent Commission had taken all questions objected by the candidates to correct the key answers before evaluating OMR answers sheets as submitted herein above in preliminary submissions. The questions are based on the standard books of psychology at under graduate level”. As such the plea taken by the Petitioners is baseless and has no weight. The Replying Respondent Commission had taken all questions objected by the candidates to correct the key answers before evaluating OMR answers sheets as submitted herein above in preliminary submissions. Since 4 questions in each paper were scrapped by the Key-Committees, it was decided by the Commission to count the total marks for each paper as 192 instead of 200. This exercise had caused no prejudice to any one as the same pattern has been applied uniformly to all the appearing candidates. According to the opinion rendered by the Expert Committee, the result of the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination-2013 was declared on 09-09-2014. The Eminent Professors/Experts are being engaged to prepare the question papers under prescribed syllabi, therefore, there is no question putting ambiguous questions in the question papers ” 8. Mr. D.K. Khanna, learned counsel for the respondent- Commission, has stated at the Bar that reply filed in CWP No. 6812 of 2014 be treated as reply in CWPs No. 7280, 7298 and 7336 of 2014. 9. The other grounds raised by the respondent-Commission are that the writ petitions are premature, the Rules do not provide for re-checking and judicial review is not permissible in law, particularly, in terms of Rules of 1973 and Rules of 2007. 10. It is a fact that the Rules of 1973 and Rules of 2007 no where provide for rechecking and revaluation; preliminary examination is just a screening and not a part of examination and the candidates cannot question the same. At the same time, it cannot be lost sight of that in extreme cases, where the key, on the face of it, appears to be wrong and in response, the Commission fails to take note of the same, we are of the considered view that Court may interfere. 11. The Apex Court in a case titled as Pankaj Sharma versus State of Jammu and Kashmir and others, reported in (2008) 4 Supreme Court Cases 273, has held that the decision of the Public Service Commission in deleting the defective/wrong questions and to allot those marks on pro-rata basis and to call the persons for interview if a candidate gets in after getting additional marks on pro- rata basis was legal one. It is apt to reproduce para 50 of the judgment herein: “50. But there is an additional factor also which supports this view. It is clear from the fact that after the receipt of the complaints, the Commission had issued Press Note on 6-7-2005 and assured the candidates that the Commission would look into the matter and no injustice would be caused to them. The Commission also obtained expert advice and thereafter suo motu decided to delete certain questions by allotting those marks pro-rata to remaining questions. It is, therefore, clear that even according to the Commission, some action was necessary, after the examination was over.” 12. The Apex Court in other cases titled as Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and others versus Samir Gupta and others, reported in (1983) 4 Supreme Court Cases 309 and Abhijit Sen and others versus State of U.P. and others, reported in (1984) 2 Supreme Court Cases 319, has held that the Courts can pass appropriate directions in appropriate cases in order to avoid the delay and to avoid recurrence of such lapses. 13. The same view was taken by one of us (Mansoor Ahmad Mir, Chief Justice) while sitting in Single Bench as a Judge of the High Court of Jammu and Kashmir, in a case titled as Showkat Ahmad Dar & Ors. versus State & Anr., reported in 2012 (4) JKJ 141 [HC]. 14. It would also be profitable to reproduce paras 6 to 9 of the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in a case titled as The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education versus Ayan Das & Ors., reported in 2007 AIR SCW 5976, herein: “6. The permissibility of re-assessment in the absence of statutory provision has been dealt with by this Court in several cases. The first of such cases is Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. reported in ( 1984 (4) SCC 27 ). It was observed in the said case that finality has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory provision, Court cannot direct re-assessment/re-examination of answer scripts. 7. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & Ors. reported in ( 1984 (4) SCC 27 ). It was observed in the said case that finality has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory provision, Court cannot direct re-assessment/re-examination of answer scripts. 7. The courts normally should not direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by the writ petitioners unless a case is made out to show that either some question has not been evaluated or that the evaluation has been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body. For example, in certain cases examining body can provide model answers to the questions. In such cases the examinees satisfy the court that model answer is different from what has been adopted by the Board. Then only the court can ask the production of answer scripts to allow inspection of the answer scripts by the examinee. In Kanpur University and Ors. v. Samir Gupta and Ors. ( AIR 1983 SC 1230 ) it was held as follows:- "16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it would 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. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect. 17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those text books support the case of the students fully. Those text books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. 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". 8. Same would be a rarity and it can only be done in exceptional cases. The principles set out in Maharashtra Board' case (supra) has been followed subsequently in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors. ( 2004 (6) SCC 714 ), Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. (2004 (13) 714) and President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and Anr. v. D. Suvankar and Anr. ( 2007 (1) SCC 603 ). 9. In view of the settled position in law, the orders of learned Single Judge and the Division Bench cannot be sustained and stand quashed.” 15. This Court in a case titled as Mukesh Thakur and another versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, reported in 2006 (1) Shim. LC 134, interfered and quashed the result made by the Commission, was subject matter of Civil Appeals No. 907 and 897 of 2006 before the Apex Court, titled as Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Mukesh Thakur and another, reported in (2010) 6 Supreme Court Cases 759. It is apt to reproduce paras 23 to 26 of the judgment herein: “23. The situation will be entirely different where the court deals with the issue of admission in mid- academic session. This Court has time and again said that it is not permissible for the courts to issue direction for admission in mid-academic session. The reason for it has been that admission to a student at a belated stage disturbs other students, who have already been pursuing the course and such a student would not be able to complete the required attendance in theory as well as in practical classes. Quality of education cannot be compromised. The students taking admission at a belated stage may not be able to complete the courses in the limited period. Quality of education cannot be compromised. The students taking admission at a belated stage may not be able to complete the courses in the limited period. In this connection reference may be made to the decisions of this Court in Pramod Kumar Joshi (Dr.) v. Medical Council of India, (1991) 2 SCC 179 ; State of U.P. v. Dr. Anupam Gupta, 1993 Supp (1) SCC 594 : AIR 1992 SC 932 ; State of Punjab v. Renuka Singla, (1994) 1 SCC 175 : AIR 1994 SC 932, Medical Council of India v. Madhu Singh, (2002) 7 SCC 258 ; and Mridul Dhar v. Union of India, (2005) 2 SCC 65 . 24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 : AIR 1984 SC 1543 , wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/ Regulations not providing for rechecking/ verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16) "14. It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. * * *16. .The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. * * *16. .The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act." 25. This view has been approved and relied upon and re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 , observing as under: (SCC pp. 717-18, para 7) "7. … Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for revaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for revaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for revaluation of his marks." (emphasis added) A similar view has been reiterated in Muneeb-Ul- Rehman Haroon (Dr.) v. Govt. of J&K State , (1984) 4 SCC 24 : AIR 1984 SC 1585 ; Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 ; Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar, (2007) 1 SCC 603 ; W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das, (2007) 8 SCC 242 : AIR 2007 SC 3098 ; and Sahiti v. Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, (2009) 1 SCC 599 . 26. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, (2009) 1 SCC 599 . 26. Thus, the law on the subject emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations, the Court should not generally direct revaluation.” 16. The Apex Court, after discussing the authorities, which were governing the field till the date of the decision in the case, has used the words : “......the Court should not generally direct revaluation”. Meaning thereby, it suggests that if there is some mistake apparent on the face of it, the Court may interfere and may direct for revaluation. 17. In the instant case, the Rules do prescribe for inviting objections before the Examiner examines the papers and before declaring the result, if the candidates files objections within seven days from displaying the key on the website. It appears that the purpose is just to examine those objections before declaring the result. 18. Applying the test to the instant case, it is specifically averred by the respondent-Commission, as discussed hereinabove, that they have invited the objections, asked the Experts to examine the objections, objections were examined, some mistakes were found, were rectified, the Examiners were asked to examine the papers in light of the Expert's opinion and thereafter, the result was declared. Thus, there is no case for interference. Had the Commission not invited the objections or had failed to take into account the said objections and the Expert's opinion, in that eventuality, the judicial review was permissible. Thus, on this count, these writ petitions are not maintainable. 19. The respondent-Commission has specifically pleaded that some of the petitioners have filed objections, but some have not filed the same. 20. It is beaten law of land that the Courts are not Experts, have to honour the opinion of the Experts and cannot substitute the same. In the instant cases, the Experts have examined the questions and given their opinion. 21. We are of the considered view that the writ petitioners, who have not filed objections, have lost their right, are bound by the decision of the Commission and cannot now file writ petitions. Further, the objections raised by the candidates, i.e. other writ petitioners, have been considered. The judicial review is not permissible. Viewed thus, the writ petitions are not maintainable. 22. The Apex Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. Further, the objections raised by the candidates, i.e. other writ petitioners, have been considered. The judicial review is not permissible. Viewed thus, the writ petitions are not maintainable. 22. The Apex Court in Vikas Pratap Singh and Ors. versus State of Chattisgarh and Ors., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 4826, held that even if the Rules are not providing for revaluation, but if the Board decides for revaluation of incorrect questions, is a wise decision, is permissible and any candidate, who gets ouster, cannot claim prejudice. Though, the judgment is not directly applicable to the facts of this case, but principle is laid down that revaluation is permissible if the questions are incorrect or the answers given in the key are wrong. 23. In Manish Ujwal & Ors. versus Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors., reported in 2006 AIR SCW 4703, and Rajesh Kumar and others etc. versus State of Bihar and others etc., reported in 2013 AIR SCW 4309, the Apex Court has held that relief of revaluation is better than holding of fresh examination in case of wrong answer keys. 24. The advertisement notice was issued on 1st January, 2014, which contained the conditions including clause 7, i.e. other conditions. The candidates, after noticing the said advertisement notice and after going through all the conditions, applied, participated in the preliminary examination, cannot now make u-turn and challenge the decision/result of the said process in view of the conditions, more particularly sub-clause 17 of clause 7 of the advertisement notice. It is apt to reproduce sub-clause 17 of clause 7 of the said advertisement notice herein: “7. OTHER CONDITIONS:- …......................... 17. Re-checking / Re-evaluation for the preliminary as well as for the main written examination shall not be allowed in any case. ” 25. Having glance of the said fact, the writ petitioners are precluded to assail the result of the preliminary examination in the given circumstances. 26. The case of the writ petitioners is squarely covered by the judgment rendered by this Court on 17th July, 2014, in a bunch of writ petitions, CWP No. 9169 of 2013, titled as Vivek Kaushal & others versus Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission. 27. Keeping in view the observations made hereinabove, the writ petitions merit to be dismissed, are dismissed alongwith all pending applications.