JUDGMENT : Sureshwar Thakur, J. The petitioner is B.A., B.Ed. On 29.9.2013, the respondent conducted written examinations of TET (TGT Arts) comprising of 150 marks. The petitioner took the said examination. On 4.10.2013, the respondent board released a press note that the answer key of the TET examination stand down loaded on the website of the board. The respondent elicited objections to the answer key within a fortnight. The petitioner represented qua the correctness of some of the answer keys to some questions. On 23.10.2013, the respondent proceeded to publish another press note qua the declaration of the official result of the TET examination. The petitioner rearing a grievance qua the correctness of some of the key answers to some questions occurring at serial No.13 and 57 of the examination book, proceeded to file a writ petition bearing CWP No.9118 of 2013. On 5.8.2014, this Court permitted the petitioner to withdraw the petition aforesaid with liberty to make a representation to the respondent-board within one week. Within the aforesaid period, the petitioner made a representation to the respondent-board, however, the said representation of the petitioner against the existence of purportedly incorrect answer keys having been displayed in the choices of some questions stood rejected. Consequently, the petitioner nursing a grievance against the rejection of his representation by the respondent-board has filed the instant petition. 2. The contentious questions whereto purportedly inaccurate/incorrect answer keys occur in their respective choices, are comprised in questions No. 13 and 57 of booklet, Series-B. The said questions are extracted hereinafter:- “13. Vocabulary of an infant at the end of the 2nd year becomes:- (A) 100 words (b) 60 words (C) 150 words (d) 10 words. 57. Excretory product of earthworm is (A) Urea (B) Uric acid (C) Ammonia (D) Amonio acid” 3. The respondent while rejecting the representation of the petitioner qua the purportedly inaccurate or incorrect keys occurring in their respective multiple choices had depended upon the opinion of the subject matter experts concerned. In so far as the accurate or correct answer to question No.13 in booklet, Series B, the subject matter experts rendered the opinion that the correct option is “B”. In so far as the accurate or correct answer to question No.13 in booklet, Series B, the subject matter experts rendered the opinion that the correct option is “B”. The standing and repute of the members of the committee set up by the respondent-board, for rendering an expert opinion qua the exactness or accuracy of the keys existing in the multiple choices qua question No.13 stands uncontroverted by adduction of cogent and reliable material on record. In aftermath, the standing and repute of the members, who constituted the committee set up by the respondent board for rendering an opinion qua the correctness or otherwise of the keys to question No.13, hence, being unimpeachable, the opinion as meted by them comprised in Annexure R-1/2, wherein, the experts on a profound and erudite study of the relevant material rendered the opinion that the correct option qua question No.13 is “B”, has to be concomitantly, when stands unrebutted by adduction of any material at the instance of the petitioner comprised in the opinion of any expert or experts empowered with higher learning and erudition in the subject concerned, vis-à-vis the members, who constituted the committee, given utmost reverence. More so, when the opinion is founded upon a proficient and in depth analysis of the literature apposite to the subject concerned besides is also accompanied by proficiency in reasons in support thereto. In sequel, the challenge of the writ petitioner to the rejection of his representation by the respondent is without any force and vigour. 4. Even, in so far as, the rendition of an opinion qua question No.57 in book let, Series B corresponding to question No.50 in booklet of series –A, the subject matter experts concerned have opined that the accurate option is “A”. The said opinion is comprised in Annexure R-1/3. Alike and akin to the reasoning meted by this Court for imbuing validity and strength to the opinion rendered by the subject matter experts qua question No.13 in booklet, series B, the opinion of the experts qua question No.57 in book let, Series B corresponding to question No.50 in booklet, series –A, too stands to be afforded legal vigour by this Court. 5. 5. The upshot of the above discussion is that this Court is not constrained to interfere with the opinion rendered by the subject matter experts upon which dependence was made by the respondent board for rejecting the representation of the petitioner. Consequently, there is no merit in this petition and it is dismissed accordingly. All pending applications also stand disposed of. No costs.