JUDGMENT 1. - The bunch of writ petitions is involving common question of law, thus heard and decided by this common order. 2. It is a case where the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "RPSC") issued an advertisement on 02nd August, 2013 to invite applications for the post of Lecturer (School Education). The applications were invited for different subjects mentioned in the advertisement. The petitioners submitted application forms and were accordingly, permitted to appear in the written examination held on different dates for different subjects. After the written examination, the answer key was published by the RPSC. The objections were invited against the questions and answers after publication of first answer key. Whoever were aggrieved by the questions or answers given in the key had submitted objections. The RPSC sent the disputed questions and answers to the expert committee to seek their opinion. 3. It is admitted by the learned counsel for both the parties that in pursuance to the expert opinion, second answer key was published by the RPSC and again they sought objections and thereupon, after seeking opinion of experts on second occasion, third answer key was published. In the third answer key, some of the answers got changed and few questions were deleted. The paper of general knowledge was common for all the posts. For the said paper also, objections were invited and submitted by the candidates followed by third answer key. After declaration of result, the recommendation for the appointment of successful candidates were made. 4. For illustration, for the post of Lecturer (Commerce), a press note to invite objections to the questions and answers on second time was issued on 31st December, 2014. The aforesaid was after meeting with the objections of the first key. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was no reason to invite objections to the questions and answers on the second occasion. No direction for it was given by any Court so as to invite objections to the questions and answers on second occasion. The press note dated 31st December, 2014 for the post of Lecturer (Commerce) further indicates that no new objection would be accepted, meaning thereby, objections to the question and answer should be in respect of the objections earlier raised. The RPSC, however, accepted even new objections and sent it for expert opinion again. The press note dated 31st December, 2014 for the post of Lecturer (Commerce) further indicates that no new objection would be accepted, meaning thereby, objections to the question and answer should be in respect of the objections earlier raised. The RPSC, however, accepted even new objections and sent it for expert opinion again. It was contrary to their own press note. As an outcome of which third key was published on 20th March, 2015. Therein, few questions were deleted or answers were changed. The result was thereupon declared on 20th March, 2015. 5. The petitioners challenged the action of the RPSC immediately by maintaining these writ petitions. The Court passed interim order restraining the non-petitioners to make appointment but despite that appointments were given in back dates, i.e., on 18th, 19th and 20th July, 2015. In view of the above, the non-petitioners even disobeyed the interim order of this Court. The petitioners are those, who could find place in the merit as per the first answer key and also as per second key. They have now been ousted with the publication of third and final key and result thereupon. 6. Coming to the facts of the case and to demonstrate glaring mistake of the RPSC to delete question, reference of few questions of general knowledge has been given. The questions have been deleted by accepting the opinion of the so called experts after ignoring, that there is a glaring mistake in the opinion of the experts. 7. For illustration, question No.75 of "A" series of General Knowledge Paper was a question on the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education (RTE) Act, 2009 (for short "Act of 2009"). It was asked as to what is the minimum percentage of the member from the parents or guardians in the school management committee. As per the Act of 2009, it is 75 percent but said question has been deleted as the Rules made under the Act of 2009 later on in the year 2011 provides it to be 100 percent. The RPSC deleted the said question despite that it was asked in reference to Right to Education Act, 2009 and not in reference to the Rules of 2011. As per Section 21 of the Act of 2009, minimum percentage of members is 75 percent. The RPSC deleted the said question despite that it was asked in reference to Right to Education Act, 2009 and not in reference to the Rules of 2011. As per Section 21 of the Act of 2009, minimum percentage of members is 75 percent. The deletion of the question in those circumstances is shocking and otherwise, reflects on expert opinion as well as working of the RPSC. In the same manner, the question pertaining to Scouts and Guides was deleted finding it to be out of syllabus. It was again in ignorance of the syllabus given by the RPSC. Therein, Scouts and Guides is one of the subject. The petitioners are those who had correctly answered both the questions. In the same manner and again for illustration, other question was in regard to "Yashpal Committee" constituted for the purpose of report to improve the quality of learning in the school while reducing burden on the students. It was one of the subject given in the syllabus-but ignoring the aforesaid, the said question was also deleted. The deletion of the question is not only illegal but shows that what type of, experts were nominated by the RPSC. It was expected from the constitutional body like the RPSC for managing its affairs with the sanctity attached to it, if the paper setters are not mindful to set the question paper as per the syllabus, whole sanctity of the written test is lost and same is the position of the experts. It is also when answers set by the paper setters are found to be incorrect. It is happening not in one selection but in all the selections conducted by the RPSC. It not only affects the result but invites avoidable litigation. 8. The similar examples can be given for other subjects wherein either the questions were deleted or answers were changed irrespective of the fact that when second key was published by the RPSC, it was containing correct answers. The petitioners specified all those questions in their objections and they have referred it during the course of arguments. Looking to the facts aforesaid, it is prayed that these writ petitions may be allowed by quashing third key published by the RPSC along with result. 9. A direction is further sought to adhere to second key published by the RPSC and declaration of result as a consequence thereof. 10. Looking to the facts aforesaid, it is prayed that these writ petitions may be allowed by quashing third key published by the RPSC along with result. 9. A direction is further sought to adhere to second key published by the RPSC and declaration of result as a consequence thereof. 10. The last argument is that despite objections raised by the petitioners to few questions, correction in the answers was not made. It is despite the fact that answers given by the petitioners are from recognised books of the State Government or National Council of Education Research and Training (for short "NCERT"). 11. For illustration, question No. 69 of Series "A" of subject History was containing wrong answer and even after objections by the petitioners, it has not been corrected. There are similar other questions of other subjects also but correction has not been made, as requested by the petitioners, thus a direction may be given to the RPSC to re-examine the questions limited to the aforesaid and to declare the result thereupon. 12. Learned counsel Mr. S.N. Kumawat, appearing for the respondent RPSC, opposed these petitions. It is submitted that after selection to the post of Lecturer for various subjects, the RPSC published the answer key on different dates for different subjects. It is looking to the fact that written test was conducted on different dates. On publication of first key, objections were invited against the questions and answers. The number of objections were received, thus it was sent for scrutiny by the experts. On the opinion of experts, second key was published in all the subjects. With the publication of second key, a press note was given to invite objections again. It was limited to the questions, for which objections were earlier submitted by the candidates looking to the fact that few candidates may not have supplied sufficient material to show answers in the first key to be incorrect or to show their answer to be correct. It was second opportunity to the candidates. The objections so received were again sent to other expert committee. As per the opinion of the second expert committee, the final answer key and result was declared. In view of the above, challenge to the press note inviting objections to the questions and answers on second occasion is not illegal so as the change in the answer key followed by the result. As per the opinion of the second expert committee, the final answer key and result was declared. In view of the above, challenge to the press note inviting objections to the questions and answers on second occasion is not illegal so as the change in the answer key followed by the result. It is further submitted that no new objection was entertained on the second occasion. Looking to the facts given above, there is no illegality in the action of the RPSC. 13. Learned counsel Mr. S.N. Kumawat further submitted that deletion of certain questions or change in the answers was as per the report of the experts. Clarifying the facts taken for illustration in the paper of General Knowledge, it is submitted that question pertaining to the Scouts and Guides was deleted as it was found to be out of syllabus. The expert opinion in this regard was given by the committee consisted of Dr. Rakesh Katara and Dr. R.K.Arora. In the same manner, the question pertaining to the Act of 2009 was deleted because the provisions of the Act of 2009 are different than to the Rules of 2011. The deletion was as per the expert opinion. In the same manner, the question pertaining to "Yashpal Committee" was deleted finding it to be out of syllabus. The deletion of question was thus as per the opinion given by the experts. 14. Learned counsel, appearing for the RPSC, lastly submitted that objections submitted by the candidates were examined not on one occasion but on two different occasions yet few petitioners are not satisfied with the answer key and the result. They have raised their objections in regard to certain questions and answers now also, though this Court is having limited jurisdiction to enter into such issues. It is in view of the following judgments of Hon'ble Apex Court: (i) Lalit Mohan Sharma & Ors. v. RPSC & Ors. In Full Bench Judgment in Writ Petition No. 1042/2005 & connected matters decided on 18 November, 2005 . (ii) Subash Chandra Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 325 : ( AIR 1995 SC 904 ). (iii) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr., reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (AIR 2010 SC 2621) . (iv) Shyam Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. (ii) Subash Chandra Verma & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in 1995 Supp (1) SCC 325 : ( AIR 1995 SC 904 ). (iii) Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr., reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 : (AIR 2010 SC 2621) . (iv) Shyam Lal v. State of Rajasthan & Anr. In DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 1013/2011 decided on 27 September, 2011 (v) Joga Ram Choudhary & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. In DB Civil Special Appeal No.38/2013 decided on 10th January, 2013. (vi) Umesh Kumar Sharma & Ors. v. Sudarshan Gaur & Ors. In DB Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No.345/2013 along with connected matters decided on 11th April, 2014 . 15. The opinion of the experts regarding question No.69 of "A" Series of History is in reference to the recognised book, though may be of private publisher. It may be that answer of one question may be found different if various books are consulted. The RPSC has gone with the report given by the experts, thus now this Court may not interfere therein. A prayer is accordingly made to dismiss all these petitions in view of the fact that after declaration of final result, appointments have also been given, though after the order of appointment, a restrained order was passed by this Court, thus joining was not permitted in favour of those, who failed to join the post immediately in pursuance to the order of appointment. 16. Learned counsel, however, admitted that, at times, questions are set out of syllabus or the answers set by the paper setters are found to be incorrect. It causes litigation. The RPSC is trying to take prominent paper setters. 17. Learned Additional Advocate General Mr. S.K. Gupta has adopted the arguments made by learned counsel Mr. S.N. Kumawat. 18. I have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and scanned the matter carefully. 19. These writ petitions pertain to selection to the post of Lecturer in various subjects referred in the advertisement. The dispute is largely in regard to the publication of the key on third occasion. 20. The facts in reference to the post of Lecturer (Commerce) has been given where second key was published on 31st December, 2014 and has been enclosed at Annex.9 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4988/2015. The dispute is largely in regard to the publication of the key on third occasion. 20. The facts in reference to the post of Lecturer (Commerce) has been given where second key was published on 31st December, 2014 and has been enclosed at Annex.9 in SB Civil Writ Petition No.4988/2015. It is after publication of first key on 12th November, 2014. The objections were invited on publication of first key and submitted by the candidates. After taking expert opinion, second answer key of the aforesaid subject was published on 31st December, 2014. On the same date, a press note was issued to invite objections again. Learned counsel for the RPSC has given justification for it but I do not find it to be convincing. After publication of first key and invitation of objections, when expert opinion was taken followed by publication of second key then I do not find any justification to invite objections on second occasion for one and the same questions. It is to provide an opportunity to the candidates to support their objections again with the material. Learned counsel for the RPSC could not clarify as to why such an opportunity was required because it was otherwise available to the candidates while submitting objections on the first occasion. If a candidate failed to support his answer with the material on the first occasion, the RPSC was not required to open gate for such a defaulter otherwise. 21. The process to invite objection and publication of answer key may become endless if the plea taken by the RPSC is accepted. The RPSC has declared the final result after publication of third key but objections have yet raised to few answers and questions after second expert opinion and if it is sent to the expert on the analogy taken by the RPSC, there would be publication of answer key on fourth occasion. The process has to end at some stage and it should be after inviting objections on first occasion. A candidate should support his objection with the material at that stage itself and not to be given other chance. 22. The way, the RPSC has taken up the matter, has not only affected the result but invited the litigation, which could have been avoided. A candidate should support his objection with the material at that stage itself and not to be given other chance. 22. The way, the RPSC has taken up the matter, has not only affected the result but invited the litigation, which could have been avoided. It is apart from the fact that if justification of the RPSC is accepted to invite objections to the questions on the second occasion, it would mean that first expert opinion was not proper or the RPSC was not having confidence on the said report so as to call another expert report in regard to the same questions. The method adopted by the RPSC cannot be said to be proper. They should have adhered to the first expert opinion because it was obtained by the RPSC itself. The decision to take objections on second occasion resulted in two conflicting opinions. The clash in the opinions of experts is of those nominated by the RPSC itself and, that too, for one and the same questions. Why second opinion is to be taken as correct leaving first opinion could not be explained by the RPSC. The aforesaid question could not be answered properly except that second committee was having more material in comparison to the first committee. The aforesaid cannot be taken to be a justification because outcome of two experts' opinion is nothing but a conflicting opinion for one and the same question and it has not been clarified that first opinion of any question was wrong by giving illustration by the RPSC. 23. The petitioners have yet raised dispute to the many questions and for illustration, question No.69 of "A" series of History subject. As per the recognised book of the Government and the NCERT, the correct answer is different than what has been taken by the RPSC after first and second opinion, learned counsel for the petitioner has also made a reference of a book "Ain-i-Akbari" to demonstrate the correct answer of the said question. Other questions were also referred in the same way. This is the position after two opinions. 24. Other questions were also referred in the same way. This is the position after two opinions. 24. In view of the above and taking it to be conflicting expert report, matter could be sent for third expert report for the same question but that would not be proper because this Court is not endorsing even the action of the RPSC for calling objections on the second occasion followed by report. It is not that objections on the second occasion were invited in pursuance to the direction of the Court and for justified reason. 25. In the background aforesaid and as the controversy is to be set at rest somewhere, it would have been proper for the RPSC to endorse the opinion of the experts taken on the first occasion instead of having two conflicting reports. 26. In fact, the opinion of experts on second occasion has also been referred to show blunder committed therein. This Court is referring certain question of paper of general knowledge. In series "A", question No.75 was in regard to the Act of 2009. The said question is quoted hereunder for ready reference : "75. Right to Education Act (2009) specifies the minimum percentage of members from the parents or guardians of the admitted children for the school management committee are: (i) 20% (ii) 75% (iii) 60% (iv) 50% 27. The correct answer set by the RPSC was 75% to be the minimum percentage of the members from the parents and guardians. The said question has been deleted now in reference to the Rules of 2011. It is not that question was in reference to the Rules of 2011 but was as per the Act of 2009. Section 21 of the Act of 2009 provides minium percentage of the members from the parents and guardians and for ready reference, Section 21 of the Act of 2009 is also quoted hereunder : "21. It is not that question was in reference to the Rules of 2011 but was as per the Act of 2009. Section 21 of the Act of 2009 provides minium percentage of the members from the parents and guardians and for ready reference, Section 21 of the Act of 2009 is also quoted hereunder : "21. School Management Committee: (1) A school, other than a school specified in sub-clause (iv) of clause (n) of section 2, shall constitute a School Management Committee consisting of the elected representatives of the local authority, parents or guardians of children admitted in such school and teachers : Provided that at least three-fourth of members of such Committee shall be parents or guardians: Provided further that proportionate representation shall be given to the parents or guardians of children belonging to disadvantaged group and weaker section : Provided also that fifty per cent, of Members of such Committee shall be women. (2) The School Management Committee shall perform the following functions, namely:- - (a) monitor the working of the school; (b) prepare and recommend school development plan; (c) monitor the utilisation of the grants received from the appropriate Government or local authority or any other source; and (d) perform such other functions as may be prescribed. (Provided that the School Management Committee constituted under sub-section (1) in respect of, - (a) a school established and administered by minority whether based on religion or language; and (b) all other aided schools as defined in subsection (ii) of clause (n) of section 2, shall perform advisory function only.)" 28. The illustration aforesaid has been given because it pertains to a statue. The dispute therein cannot be of a book recognised by the NCERT or the Government. It is a question pertaining to the statue itself notified by the Government. It remains the same irrespective of the publisher. The justification for deletion is in view of the opinion of experts, who had given that there was confusion in the mind of the students as the Rules of 2011 provides minimum 100 per cent. It is quite surprising that the RPSC has accepted the aforesaid reasoning when the question is in reference to the Act of 2009 and not in reference to the Rules of 2011. It is quite surprising that the RPSC has accepted the aforesaid reasoning when the question is in reference to the Act of 2009 and not in reference to the Rules of 2011. If a candidate does not understand the question, that too, when it was raised in a specific term, the premium is not to be given to such a candidate and, that too, with illogical reasoning. 29. In the same manner, if the syllabus published by the RPSC is taken into consideration, it will reflect that Scouts and Guides is one of the subject included in syllabus. The question No.61 of series "C" pertaining to Scouts and Guides is also quoted hereunder for ready reference :VERNACULAR MATTER 30. The said question is deleted on the ground that it is out of syllabus. The RPSC could not justify the action but has made reference of expert opinion. It is necessary to indicate that while taking expert opinion, the RPSC should not ignore certain questions and answers, which can be assessed on the face of record. The question which are coming out from the statute or rules and likewise. The blind correction may result in failure of justice, as is coming out from the illustrations, quoted above. In the same manner, another question No.5 pertaining to "Yashpal Committee" of Series "D" is also quoted hereunder for ready reference : "05 The theme of Yashpal Committee Report (1993) is : (i) ICT in Teacher Educational (ii) Learning without burden (iii) Learning through Broadcasting (iv) None of the above 31. The aforesaid question has been deleted treating it to be out of syllabus. The syllabus, however, shows Educational Management to be one of the subject. The "Yashpal Committee" was constituted for the purpose of learning without burden on the students. It is for effective educational management but the question pertaining to it has been deleted. The relevant part of syllabus is quoted hereunder for ready reference for both the questions : "5. Educational Management, Educational scenario in Rajasthan, Right to Education Act, 2009. Concept and functions of educational management. Educational management in Rajasthan. School as a unit or decentralized planning, Educational management information system (EMIS), Institutional planning, School mapping, Block Resource Centre (BRC), School Management Committee (SMC), District Information System for Education (DISE), Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyanik Sikhsha Abhiyan (RMSA). Educational Management, Educational scenario in Rajasthan, Right to Education Act, 2009. Concept and functions of educational management. Educational management in Rajasthan. School as a unit or decentralized planning, Educational management information system (EMIS), Institutional planning, School mapping, Block Resource Centre (BRC), School Management Committee (SMC), District Information System for Education (DISE), Sarva Siksha Abhiyan (SSA), Rashtriya Madhyanik Sikhsha Abhiyan (RMSA). Organisation of educational set up at primary and secondary in Rajasthan, Functions of RIE, SIERT, BSER, IASE, CTE, DIET, Rajasthan Educational Initiative, Balika Shiksha Foundation, Kasturba Gandhi Balika Vidalaya, Rajasthan text book board, Bharat Scouts and Guides. Rasthriya Military school, Sainik school, Public school, Model school, E-Mitra, E-Governance, Rajshiksha, Edusat, Gyandarshan, Gyanvani. Provisions of Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 S.No. Subject No. of Questions Total Marks 1 History of Rajasthan and Indian History with special emphasis on India National Movement. 15 30 2 Mental Ability Test, Statistics (Secondary Level), Mathematics (Secondary Level), Language Ability Test; Hindi, English 20 40 3 Current Affairs 10 20 4 General Science, Indian Polity, Geography of Rajasthan 15 30 5 Educational Management. Educational Scenario in Rajasthan. Riaht to Education Act. 2009 15 30 Total 75 150 Scheme or examination Note : 1 All the question in the Paper shall be Multiple Choice Type Question. 2. Negative marking shall be applicable in the evaluation of answer. For every wrong answer one-third of the marks prescribed for that particular question shall be deducted. Explanation : wrong answer shall mean an incorrect answer or multiple answer. 3. Duration of the paper shall be 1 Hour 30 Minutes." Both the questions are coming out from the syllabus. 32. This Court is not giving opinion in regard to the questions referred for illustration.The reference of the questions and answers from the statute book or in reference to the syllabus are given to know as to whether deletion of question is proper or not on the face of it. The deletion of those questions is nothing but an outcome of the publication of key on second occasion and not on the first occasion. The same is the position for other subjects. In fact, the opinion of the expert taken on second occasion becomes doubtful in these circumstances. The deletion of those questions is nothing but an outcome of the publication of key on second occasion and not on the first occasion. The same is the position for other subjects. In fact, the opinion of the expert taken on second occasion becomes doubtful in these circumstances. The illustration aforesaid has been given to demonstrate the consequences, if the expert opinion is called for more than one occasion and opinion is such which is even contrary to the question raised in reference to the statute. There may be justification to call for the second opinion but it should be in a glaring case where first opinion cannot be accepted in any manner. It should not be in routine as has been done by the RPSC in the instant case. It has resulted in conflicting opinion and why second opinion has been accepted, could be justified by the RPSC. If the justification for calling objections on second time is accepted, then it is given opportunity to those, who could not submit material on the first occasion, thus to the defaulters. Accordingly, to the extent of challenge to the objections called on the second occasion to the answer key published after dealing with the objection on first occasion to the model key, action of the RPSC cannot be said to be just and proper. 33. The petitioners have raised objections even to certain questions after first and second opinion of experts. For illustration, question No.69 of "A" Series of History subject has been given. There are many such questions. 34. The objections to the answer cannot be accepted in the light of the discussion made above. This Court has taken a view that after expert opinion, further opinion was not proper, though there can be exceptional circumstances where such exercise can be undertaken. In the instant case, in first as well as in second expert's opinion, answer of question No.69 of "A" Series of History subject is same. The conflict of the answer is in reference to various books. As per the book published and relied by the RPSC, the answer selected by them is correct. If answer is considered in reference to the book referred by the petitioners, which is approved by the NCERT, answer given by them is correct. In view of the above, it is such a question, which is having different answers in different reference books. If answer is considered in reference to the book referred by the petitioners, which is approved by the NCERT, answer given by them is correct. In view of the above, it is such a question, which is having different answers in different reference books. The similar is the position of other questions. If the RPSC has selected one answer in reference to a book relied by the expert, their action cannot be said to be per se illegal. The finding aforesaid may not be taken in general but in a given facts. It is also a fact that this Court would not interfere in the answers unless it is related to the statutory provision or which has only one possible answer. 35. Looking to the fact aforesaid, I am not inclined to accept the argument of learned counsel for the petitioners with the prayer to send certain questions for third opinion in the facts and circumstances of the case. This court is of the opinion that controversy should end somewhere with appointment without affecting teaching work, thus for the aforesaid reason also, I am unable to accept the challenge to the first expert's opinion in regard to the questions, which are having two possible answers and illustration, question No.69 of "A" Series of History subject has been referred in the preceding part of the judgment. 36. It is, however, a fact that subsequent to the publication of third key, result has been declared followed by appointments and many candidates have already joined the posts. It was, however, made subject to the outcome of these writ petitions. In view of the above, while setting aside third answer key published by the RPSC, they are directed as follows : (i) The RPSC would publish result based on second answer key. The appointments would be given thereafter as per the revised merit list. (ii) The new merit list may repeat the name of those, who have been earlier appointed, thus their appointment would not be disturbed and at the same time, new appointment pursuant to the revised merit list would be arranged in order of merit for the purpose of seniority but such of petitioners would not be entitled to the back-wages or other benefits. (iii) Those candidates, who go out of the merit list and were otherwise appointed pursuant to third answer key may not be ousted from service if nothing adverse exists against them and sufficient vacant post exists. The Government shall accommodate them against the vacancies by placing them at the bottom of revised list of the selected candidates. The direction aforesaid is given in the light of the judgments in the case of Rajesh Kumar & Ors. v. State of Bihar & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690 : ( AIR 2013 SC 2652 ) , Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. v. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., reported in (2013) 4 SCC 494 : ( AIR 2013 SC 3414 ) and lastly considering the judgment of this Court in the bunch of writ petitions led by SB Civil Writ Petition No. 3541/2014 in the case Pooja Sharma v. RPSC, Ajmer & Ors. decided on 24th November, 2014 . 37. It is seen that lot of litigation is coming to the Court in regard to setting of the papers and their answers. At times, reference of different books is given. It give different answers to one question itself. The litigation is not only causing burden on the candidates but also on the RPSC and the Government. It is even causing uncertainty in the mind of the candidates regarding their future and also to the appointment already made during the period of litigation. 38. To avoid aforesaid, the Chairman of RPSC should consider the issue in the Board as to whether the paper setters can be directed to set the questions and answers from the books of the questions and correctness of the answers can be avoided. In that case, even the expert opinion would be in reference to the recognised book by the Government or by the NCERT to avoid conflicting opinion. The RPSC would also take a decision that if the opinion is palpably incorrect then to keep those experts in future or to blacklist them. The aforesaid efforts would minimise the litigation. The issues referred to above would obviously be applied for future selections. 39. With the aforesaid, all these writ petitions are disposed of so as the stay applications.Order accordingly. *******