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. V/2012, dated 5th January, 2013 (Annexure P-1), for filling up nine vacancies of Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service, Class-I (Gazetted). The desirous candidates applied and the preliminary examination was conducted on 16th June, 2013, 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 30th July, 2013, 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, the result was prepared by the Examiners after taking note of the Expert's opinion and result was declared by the Commission on 31st October, 2013. 4. The petitioners have questioned the same on the grounds taken in the memo of respective writ petitions and in CWP No. 9243 of 2013, Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, has also raised a ground that a reserve category candidate, who has scored marks more than the marks obtained by the last eligible general category candidate, has to be considered in general category and in that process, next candidate from the reserve category from the queue has to be shown to have qualified the preliminary examination. 5. The respondent-Commission has filed reply in CWP No. 9169 of 2013 and stated that the same be treated as reply in all the writ petitions. The reply filed by the respondent-Commission was adopted by the respondent-State 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 also be profitable to reproduce the reply filed by the respondent-Commission to paras 10, 11 and 12 in CWP No. 9169 of 2013 herein: “Para 11, 12 & 13:- It is a regular feature of the H.P. Public Service Commission to conduct Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services Combined Competitive Examination every year. The Eminent Professors / Experts are being engaged to prepare the question papers under prescribed syllabi therefore, there is no question of putting ambiguous questions in the Question Papers. Before declaring the result of HPAS Preliminary Examination the replying Respondent displays the Key of the Answers and invite objections from the appeared candidates which are placed before the expert committee for taking their opinion. After removing the objections of the Answer Key the result of the Preliminary Examination is being declared. The Respondent adopts a fool proof system in preparing and declaring the result. It is also added that 640 candidates declared qualified in the Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services etc. Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination – 2012 in proportion to the number of available vacancies.” 8. The other grounds raised by the respondents 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. 9. Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination – 2012 in proportion to the number of available vacancies.” 8. The other grounds raised by the respondents 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. 9. We have gone through the pleadings of the parties and the Rules of 1973 & the Rules of 2007, copies of which have been made available by the learned Advocate General to the Court, made part of the file. 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 prorata 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 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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 respondents, 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 respondents have specifically pleaded that some of the petitioners have filed objections, but some have not filed the same. The respondents have furnished CWP-wise list of the petitioners, who have not represented/filed objections before the Commission, made part of the file. The respondents have also furnished opinion of Experts of Key-Committee on objected questions/key answers of the General Studies & Aptitude Test. 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. Thus, the writ petitions are not maintainable so far it relate to them. Further, the objections raised by the candidates have been considered and judicial review is not permissible. 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. 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 5th January, 2013, which contained the conditions including clause 9, 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 9 of the advertisement notice. It is apt to reproduce sub-clause 17 of clause 9 of the said advertisement notice herein: “9. 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. During the course of the arguments, a question was put to Mr. Dogra as to why the result is being declared category-wise in view of the fact that the preliminary examination is not a part of examination, is just a filtration and is only for fixing criteria in order to have requisite number of candidates, in terms of the Rules of 1973 and the Rules of 2007, to compete in main examination. Dogra as to why the result is being declared category-wise in view of the fact that the preliminary examination is not a part of examination, is just a filtration and is only for fixing criteria in order to have requisite number of candidates, in terms of the Rules of 1973 and the Rules of 2007, to compete in main examination. He was not able to reply, but argued that it is a practice of the Commission to declare the result of the preliminary examination category-wise in proportion to the number of vacancies advertised and cut-off marks are fixed accordingly. This question was put to him because of the averments contained in CWP No. 9243 of 2013. 27. It appears that the practice of the Commission is not in accordance with the judgment made by the Apex Court in Andhra Pradesh Public Service Commission versus Baloji Badhavath and others, reported in (2009) 5 Supreme Court Cases 1. It is apt to reproduce paras 29, 30, 32 and 36 of the judgment herein: “29. Indisputably, the preliminary examination is not a part of the main examination. The merit of the candidate is not judged thereby. Only an eligibility criterion is fixed. The papers for holding the examination comprise of general studies and mental ability. Such a test must be held to be necessary for the purpose of judging the basic eligibility of the candidates to hold the tests. How and in what manner the State as also the Commission would comply with the constitutional requirements of Article 335 of the Constitution of India should ordinarily not be allowed to be questioned. 30. The proviso appended to Article 335 of the Constitution, to which our attention has been drawn by Mr. Rao, cannot be said to have any application whatsoever in this case. Lowering of marks for the candidates belonging to the reserved candidates (sic categories) is not a constitutional mandate at the threshold. It is permissible only for the purpose of promotion. Those who possess the basic eligibility would be entitled to appear at the main examination. While doing so, in regard to General English whereas the minimum qualifying marks are 40% for OCs, it would be 35% for BCs and 30% for SC/STs and physically handicapped persons. However, those marks were not to be counted for ranking. 31. ….......................... 32. Judging of merit may be at several tiers. While doing so, in regard to General English whereas the minimum qualifying marks are 40% for OCs, it would be 35% for BCs and 30% for SC/STs and physically handicapped persons. However, those marks were not to be counted for ranking. 31. ….......................... 32. Judging of merit may be at several tiers. It may undergo several filtrations. Ultimately, the constitutional scheme is to have the candidates who would be able to serve the society and discharge the functions attached to the office. Vacancies are not filled up by way of charity. Emphasis has all along been made, times without number, to select candidates and/ or students based upon their merit in each category. The disadvantaged group or the socially backward people may not be able to compete with the open category people but that would not mean that they would not be able to pass the basic minimum criteria laid down therefor. 33. …............................ 34. …............................ 35. …............................ 36. Strong reliance has been placed by Mr. Rao on Sangram Singh v. Election Tribunal, [ AIR 1955 SC 425 : (1955) 2 SCR 1 ] wherein Vivian Bose. J., stated as under: (AIR p. 429, para 16) "16. Now a code of procedure must be regarded as such. It is 'procedure', something designed to facilitate justice and further its ends: not a penal enactment for punishment and penalties; not a thing designed to trip people up. Too technical a construction of sections that leaves no room for reasonable elasticity of interpretation should therefore be guarded against (provided always that justice is done to 'both' sides) lest the very means designed for the furtherance of justice be used to frustrate it." The said observation was made keeping in view the concept of justice. By reason of providing for a preliminary examination, the right of the reserved category candidates has not been taken away. The means cannot be allowed to defeat the ends which the constitutional scheme seeks to achieve.” 28. This judgment is direct answer to Mr. Dogra and Mr. Negi. 29. The petitioners have been allowed to sit in the main examination and that is the handicap, the respondents are not declaring the result. The petitioners have not made the grade in the preliminary examination, have no right to claim any relief by way of interim directions. This judgment is direct answer to Mr. Dogra and Mr. Negi. 29. The petitioners have been allowed to sit in the main examination and that is the handicap, the respondents are not declaring the result. The petitioners have not made the grade in the preliminary examination, have no right to claim any relief by way of interim directions. However, they were allowed to participate in the main examination conducted by the Commission for Himachal Pradesh Administrative Services with a direction to the Commission that the answer-sheets of the petitioners shall be evaluated and kept in a sealed cover till the final disposal of the writ petitions. 30. It is beaten law of land that interim directions cannot create any right or interest in favour of the candidates, who are not eligible and competent to sit in the examination. 31. Keeping in view the observations made hereinabove, the writ petitions merit to be dismissed and the interim directions are to be vacated. Ordered accordingly. 32. The Court Master is directed to hand over the record including the opinion of Experts of Key-Committee on objected questions/key answers of the General Studies & Aptitude Test to Mr. D.K. Khanna, Advocate. 33. The writ petitions are disposed of, as indicated hereinabove, alongwith all pending applications.