JUDGMENT Hon’ble M.C. Tripathi, J.—In this group of cases the petitioners have prayed for a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to permit the petitioners to appear provisionally in the mains examination of Assistant Prosecution Officer Exam-2015 scheduled to be held on 27th & 28th December, 2015. 2. For the sake of convenience, the facts of Writ A No. 65832 of 2015 are being noted below : 3. Gulab Chand Bharati is before this Court with the following prayer : “(i) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner by awarding marks towards question Nos. 26 and 63 so given by the petitioner in the OMR sheet of “D” series of the subject General Knowledge and Law related to Roll No.046696 of Assistant Prosecution Officer Examination (Preliminary)-2015 conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad. (ii) Issue writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding and directing the respondents to allow and permit the petitioner to appear provisionally in the Mains Examinations for Assistant Prosecution Officer Exam-2015 which is being conducted by Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad during the pendency of the present writ petition. (iii) Any other suitable writ, order or direction, which this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. (iv) To award costs of the petition to this petitioners.” 4. Brief background of the case is that the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Allahabad (hereinafter referred to as Commission) advertised post of Assistant Prosecution Officer on 29.4.2015, advertising total 372 posts (229 for unreserved category, 55 for SC of UP, 88 for OBC of UP, 07 for dependents of freedom fighter, 11 for physically handicapped of UP and 74 for female of UP) to be filled up. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. He has submitted his application form for appearing in the preliminary examination and in pursuance of the same the Commission issued a admit card to him for appearing in the preliminary examination on 26.7.2015. For the said purpose the petitioner was also allotted a roll No.046696 as well as registration No. 60130087917. The petitioner belongs to Scheduled Caste category. He has submitted his application form for appearing in the preliminary examination and in pursuance of the same the Commission issued a admit card to him for appearing in the preliminary examination on 26.7.2015. For the said purpose the petitioner was also allotted a roll No.046696 as well as registration No. 60130087917. Finally the petitioner had appeared in the preliminary examination which was held on 26.7.2015 and at the time of examination he was given a question booklet of ‘D’ series bearing Code BTPUN-2015 relating to subject ‘General Knowledge’ and ‘Law’. The grievance of the petitioner is that he has not been awarded correct marks for question Nos. 26 of General Knowledge and 63 of Law. For ready reference the question Nos. 26 and 63 are reproduced hereinafter : “Q. 26. Who among the following Indian mathematicians invented metric system? (a) Aryabhatta, (b) Pingala, (c) Gargi (d) Bhasker Q. 63. ‘A’ obtained a sum of Rs. 10000/- from ‘B’ by putting ‘B’ in fear of death. Which one of the following offences was committed by ‘A’? (a) Cheating, (b) Robbery (c) Mischief (d) Extortion” 5. The contention of the petitioner is that he had marked (a) Aryabhatta whereas the Commission had initially accepted (b) Pingala as the correct answer. In the same way, so far as Q.63 is concerned, the petitioner has proceeded to mark (b) Robbery whereas the Commission has proceeded to accept (d) Extortion as correct answer. Finally the Commission had declared the result of preliminary examination of APO Exam-2015 in which 7795 candidates were declared successful. 6. It has also been brought on record that in order to bring complete transparency in the evaluation process the answer keys of the aforesaid preliminary examination were displayed on the website of the Commission from 6.10.2015 to 13.10.2015, which was duly advertised on 30.9.2015 and the candidates were required to file their objections, if any, regarding any question/answer between 7th of October, 2015 and 14th of October, 2015. This has also been brought on record by the Commission that total 24 objections were received with regard to General Knowledge paper and 47 objections with regard to Law paper. This has also been brought on record by the Commission that total 24 objections were received with regard to General Knowledge paper and 47 objections with regard to Law paper. Finally all the objections/representations submitted by the candidates with respect to all the questions/series/booklet i.e. A, B, C, and D were converted into ‘A’ series and objections were referred for consideration and scrutiny to the Expert Committee. For consideration of the objections the Commission had constituted two separate Committees having 10 members each for General Knowledge paper and in the similar manner for second paper of Law, two separate Expert Committees were constituted consisting of 05 members each and workshop of both the Committees were organized on 21.11.2015 and 22.11.2015. After detailed deliberation by the Expert Committees each and every objections had been dealt with in detail and finally the Expert Committees recommended for deletion of 04 questions and also modified the answers of certain questions as was earlier indicated in the key-answers uploaded on the website during the period from 6th of October, 2015 upto 13th of October, 2015 and as per recommendations made by the Expert Committees the modified answer-keys, the answer-sheets of all the candidates including the petitioner, were evaluated and the final result of APO (Preliminary) Examination-2015 was declared on 24.11.2015. The Commission had uploaded the final revised answer-key on the website of the Commission on 27.11.2015 which was displayed on the website upto 3.12.2015. 7. It is also important to mention here that the evaluation of the answer-sheets of all the candidates including the petitioner had been done by the Commission on the basis of modified/revised answer-keys and the marks have been awarded as per formula inasmuch as 04 questions were deleted by the expert. For ready reference, the formula, which has been categorically mentioned in the counter-affidavit, is reproduced hereinafter : “Total number of marks X Number of correct answers given by the candidates Total number of questions - Number of deleted questions” 8. It has also been brought on record that answer-sheets of all the candidates including the petitioner have been universally evaluated on the basis of the modified/revised answer-keys pursuant to the categorical report submitted by the Expert Committees, which had scrutinized each and every objections in detail and only thereafter the final result was declared on 24.11.2015. 9. It has also been brought on record that answer-sheets of all the candidates including the petitioner have been universally evaluated on the basis of the modified/revised answer-keys pursuant to the categorical report submitted by the Expert Committees, which had scrutinized each and every objections in detail and only thereafter the final result was declared on 24.11.2015. 9. On 21.12.2015 when the matter was taken up, Shri Rakesh Pande, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the dispute is ‘as to whether the correct answer of Q. No.63 of ‘D’ series was ‘Robbery’ or ‘Extortion’, and for another question No. 35 of answer-sheet ‘D’ the dispute was ‘as to when the first Governor General of India was appointed and the petitioner claimed that correct answer was (b) 1833 whereas the Commission had taken correct answer as (a) 1774. Shri Rakesh Pande has contended with vehemence on 21.12.2015 that as per the stand taken by the petitioner in both the questions, the petitioner had attempted the correct answers and the Commission has wrongly accepted the version of the Expert. 10. In this background the Court has proceeded to ask Shri M.N. Singh and Shri Nisheeth Yadav, appearing for the Commission to take appropriate steps so that again an expert opinion may be brought on record. Even the Court had allowed them to take an assistance from the imminent Professor of University of Allahabad so that both the answers may be appropriately dealt with and whatever discrepancies, shown by learned counsel for the petitioner in the Court, could suitably be replied by an subject expert. In this background the Commission had proceeded to take an opinion from the expert and such an opinion of the expert has been brought in the Court in the sealed cover. 11. Thereafter the Court has proceeded to open the sealed envelop in the Court and find that 09 experts have submitted report to the Commission whereas they could have found with uniformity that the answer sheet, which had been displayed by the Commission, was correct and there was no infirmity in the same. 11. Thereafter the Court has proceeded to open the sealed envelop in the Court and find that 09 experts have submitted report to the Commission whereas they could have found with uniformity that the answer sheet, which had been displayed by the Commission, was correct and there was no infirmity in the same. For ready reference, the details of the imminent Professor holding the field are reproduced as below : Þek0 mPp U;k;ky; ds vkns’k fnukad 21-12-2015 ds vuqikyu esa lgk;d vfHk;kstu vf/kdkjh ¼izk0½ ijh{kk] 2015 ls lacaf/kr fjV ;kfpdkvksa esa ;kphx.kksa }kjk mBk;s x;s iz’uksa ,oa muds mRrjksa ds iqu% ijh{k.k gsrq fnukad 22-12-2015 dks vkgwr fo”k; fo’ks”kKksa dk fooj.k % dz0 la0 fo”k; fo'ks"kK dk uke@ inuke fo"k; fo'ofo|ky; 1 izks0 ds0ih0 frokjh ¼ ls0fu0½ LkkekU; Kku bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn 2 izks0 ts0,u0 iky lkekU; Kku bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn 3 izks0 vkse izdk'k JhokLro lkekU; Kku bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn 4 izks0 ybZd vgen ¼ ls0fu0½ lkekU; Kku bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn 5 Mk0 vkyksd izlkn lkekU; Kku bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn 6 Jh Jhjke ;kno ¼ls0fu0½ vkbZ0,0,l0 &&&&&& 7 izks0 vkj0ds0 pkScs fof/k bykgkckn fo'ofo|ky;] bykgkckn 8 izks0 ,l0ds0 flag ¼ls0fu0½ fof/k Mk0 jke euksgj yksfg;k vo/k fo0fo0] QStkcknA 9 izks0 xq: Kku flag ¼ls0fu0½ fof/k bykgkckn fo’ofo|ky;] bykgkckn </font> 12. Shri M.N. Singh, learned counsel appearing for the Commission has relied upon the judgments in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, (1984) 4 SCC 27 ; H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another, 2010 Law Suit (SC) 332; Central Board of Secondary Education v. Khushboo Shrivastava and others, (2014) 14 SCC 523 and Writ A No. 33854 of 2014 (Sandeep Mishra and 100 others v. State of U.P. and others, decided on 4.8.2014 in support of his submission. 13. Heard rival submissions and perused the record. 14. As noticed above, when the Commission has proceeded to ask an objection from the candidates, total 24 objections were received with respect to General Knowledge paper and 47 objections were received with respect to Law paper and finally on the basis of expert opinion the Commission had proceeded to delete 04 questions and on the basis of modified/revised answer-kews, the marks were awarded accordingly as per the formula as mentioned above. It is also apparent that the answer-sheets of all the candidates including the petitioner have been universally evaluated on the basis of modified/revised answer keys pursuant to the recommendation of the Expert Committees after thoroughly examining and considering the objections raised by various candidates. Even at this stage, it is further necessary to be reiterated that on 21.12.2015, when the Court had proceeded into the matter, Shri Rakesh Pandey had tried to convince the Court on two main questions, then this Court has also proceeded again and directed the Commission to take a fresh opinion from the expert of the subjects and immediately in pursuance of the directives issued by this Court the Commission has proceeded and constituted a very high and reputed academicians mostly from the University of Allahabad, which is a Central University and once the Expert, who holds the field on the subject, had given an opinion, then at this stage the Court cannot substitute its own finding regarding the correctness of the questions. It is not disputed that the procedure was adopted uniformly for all the candidates and whatever the procedure adopted by the Commission is a plausible method of protecting the interest of the candidates. 15. Similar controversy has come up before a Division Bench of Madras High Court in M.A. Ravivarma v. The Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission, Chennai in Writ Appeal No.649 of 2009 and other connected appeals decided on 18.9.2009. Relevant paragraphs 50, 51, 57, 58 are reproduced hereinafter : “50. As far as proportionality is concerned, it is stated that if the entire examination is set aside, the whole clock will be turned back by two years and successful candidates who have waited for all these long years to write the examination will be driven back to square one for no fault of theirs. According to the learned senior counsel, such successful candidates should not be made to become victims of this exercise. (C) Impleading Petitions with a prayer in the nature of Cross Appeal: 51. As the above narration denotes the unsuccessful candidates in the TNPSC examination went on filing petitions after petitions, and prior to these matters coming to this Division Bench, the cause of successful candidates was essentially defended by the Public Service Commission. (C) Impleading Petitions with a prayer in the nature of Cross Appeal: 51. As the above narration denotes the unsuccessful candidates in the TNPSC examination went on filing petitions after petitions, and prior to these matters coming to this Division Bench, the cause of successful candidates was essentially defended by the Public Service Commission. The submission of the unsuccessful candidates was that there were certain errors in the questions that had been set up for the examination and that some of the answers were also erroneous and therefore, they had suffered in the preliminary examination. Accepting their submission, an Expert Committee was directed to be appointed in the first round of litigation under the judgment of N. Paul Vasanthakumar, J. The number of candidates who were granted the benefit of the opinion of the Expert Committee got increased in the second round of litigation under the judgment of P.Jyothimani, J, and ultimately the number went up to 125 and odd. 57. The TNPSC fairly accepted that 8 questions were confusing in nature and they are Questions Nos. 40, 45, 68, 82, 102, 127, 130 and 173. Out of these 8 questions, Question No.45 is the only one on Science, whereas the rest were on humanities. Thus, for example, Question No.130, was as follows : The Pallava rulers believed in A) Jainism B) Buddhism C)Hinduism D) Shaivism— The Public Service Commission in its key answers gave Jainism i.e., (A) as the correct answer, whereas we are pointed out on authority that the Pallava Kings were earlier Jains and later on their Queen converted to Shaivism. It is, therefore, difficult to say that a particular answer is correct and the other one is wrong. As stated above, out of these 8 questions, only Question No.45 is the one, which deals with Science, and which is to the following effect : –45. The plant which possesses anticancerous acivity is (A) Seetha B) PolyalthiaC) Teak D) Murungai— The Service Commission in its key answers gave A as the correct answer, whereas according to the Expert Committee either A or B can be the correct answer. 58. The plant which possesses anticancerous acivity is (A) Seetha B) PolyalthiaC) Teak D) Murungai— The Service Commission in its key answers gave A as the correct answer, whereas according to the Expert Committee either A or B can be the correct answer. 58. Mr.Somayaji therefore submits that assuming that there were errors in the eight answers, seven answers were on humanities on which perhaps there were two different answers, and the unsuccessful candidates have been given the benefit of the answers given by the Expert Committee, whereas the successful candidates have marked the answers on the basis of the key answers. According to Mr.Somayaji, no serious prejudice has been caused in this process.” 16. Hon’ble Supreme Court has time and again pointed out that it is for the bodies entrusted with the task of holding an examination to determine what policy should be adopted and it is not for the candidates appearing at the examination to dictate what particular policy should be adopted. In this connection, reference needs to be made to the decision of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc. etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543 in which the Supreme Court examined the scope of interference in policy matters and observed : “It would be wholly wrong for the Court to substitute its own opinion for that of the legislature or its delegate as to what principle or policy would best serve the objects and purposes of the Act and to sit in judgment over the wisdom and effectiveness or otherwise of the policy laid down by the regulation-making body and declare a regulation to be ultra vires merely on the ground that, in the view of the Court, the impugned provisions will not help to serve the object and purpose of the Act. So long as the body entrusted with the task of framing the rules or regulations acts within the scope of the authority conferred on it, in the sense that the rules or regulations made by it have a rational nexus with the object and purpose of the Statute, the Court should not concern itself with the wisdom or efficaciousness of such rules or regulations. 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. It is not for the Court to examine the merits or demerits of such a policy because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulation-making power conferred on the delegate by the Statute. .......................................... 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 draw-backs 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. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making power or its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution.” 17. The Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao and another, AIR 1965 SC 491 , held that in academic matters, where the decision under challenge has been taken by the Committee of Expert “normally the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by the experts” unless there are allegations of mala fide against any of the Members of the Expert Committee. The Court further observed as under : “.....It would normally be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than Courts...” 18. Similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in State of Bihar and others v. Dr. Asis Kumar Mukherjee and others, AIR 1975 SC 192 ; Dr. M. C. Gupta and others v. Dr. Arun Kumar Gupta and others, (1979) 2 SCC 339 ; Rajendra Prasad Mathur v. Karnataka University and another, AIR 1986 SC 1448 ; Dr. Uma Kant v. Dr. Bhika Lal Jain and others, AIR 1991 SC 2272 ; The Chancellor and another v. Dr. Bijay Nanda Kar and others, (1994) 1 SCC 169 ; State of Orissa and others v. Prajnaparamita Samanta and others, (1996) 7 SCC 106 ; Chairman, J & K State Board of Education v. Fayaz Ahmad, (2000) 3 SCC 59 and The Dental Council of India v. Subharti K.K.B. Charitable Trust and another, AIR 2001 SC 215. . 19. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another (2010) 6 SCC 759 Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as follow : “In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” 20. The Apex Court in the case of Subash Chandra and others Etc. v. State of Bihar and others, Etc., 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 325, has explained that normally the High Court should appoint an expert body and obtain its opinion in the matter of confusing or controversial nature of questions. The Apex Court in the case of Subash Chandra and others Etc. v. State of Bihar and others, Etc., 1995 Suppl. (1) SCC 325, has explained that normally the High Court should appoint an expert body and obtain its opinion in the matter of confusing or controversial nature of questions. Relevant paragraph reads as follows: “Normally speaking, the High Court should have appointed an expert body and obtained its opinion about the confusing or controversial nature of questions. For reasons best known, it was not done. It has merely chosen to accept the version of the writ petitioners before it. The reason why this Court has repeatedly pointed out such matters being referred to an expert body and its opinion sought, is that in academic matters like this, Courts do not have the necessary expertise.” 21. It is also worthwhile to refer to paragraph-25 of the Judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (Supra), which provides that if controversial questions have been set and in relation to some questions, there could be more than one answer. In an objective type of test, more than one answers are given. The candidate is required to tick mark the answer, which is the most appropriate out of the plurality of answers. For ready reference relevant portion of paragraph-25 of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Subhash Chandra (supra) is being quoted herein below: “25. ...................................... 3. Several controversial questions were set and in relation to some questions, there could be more than one answer: In an objective type of test, more than one answer are given. The candidates are required to tick mark the answer which is the most appropriate out of the plurality of answers. The questions and answers were prescribed by the experts in the field with reference to standard books. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a question will have more than one correct answer. Even if the answers could be more than one, the candidates will have to select the one which is more correct out of the alternative answers. In any event, this is a difficulty felt by ail the candidates. ..........................................................................” 22. Therefore, it is incorrect to say that a question will have more than one correct answer. Even if the answers could be more than one, the candidates will have to select the one which is more correct out of the alternative answers. In any event, this is a difficulty felt by ail the candidates. ..........................................................................” 22. From the side of the petitioner, reliance has been placed on the judgment passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others, (2013) 4 SCC 690 in which Hon’ble Supreme Court has directed for re-evaluation, when the selection process/procedure was held to be erroneous evaluation (using wrong answer key). It is in this background the direction was issued by Apex Court for re-evaluation whereas in the present matter, we do not find that any erroneous evaluation had been made by the examiners and as such it is not warranted that the re-evaluation is required in the matter. The petitioner has also relied upon judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikash Pratap Singh v. State of Chhatisgarh, (2013) 14 SCC 494 . 23. In view of aforesaid facts and circumstances, we find that once the objections had been filed by the candidates; the Commission has proceeded to constitute the expert body and on the recommendation of the expert body, they have proceeded to delete 04 questions, the writ petitions sans merit and are accordingly dismissed. 24. Before we part with this matter, we would like to express our opinion that the Commission will be more careful in future while conducting the examinations. The paper setters and examiners ought to have greater concern for the large number of candidates who appear in these examinations and their future career depends upon their selection. We expect the Commission to be much more thoughtful while setting papers for future examinations to be conducted by them. ———————