JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. All the petitioners before this Court in the abovementioned writ petitions were candidates, who had appeared in a written examination, which was for selection of Sub-Inspectors/Platoon Commanders in Civil Police, Local Intelligence Unit (L.I.U.) & Police Armed Constabulary in the Police Force of Uttarakhand. 2. The written examination consisted of objective type questions with multiple choice answers, which each candidate had to give in an OMR Sheet. The total number of questions was 300, each question carrying one mark with a negative marking of 0.25 marks for each wrong answer. 3. Prior to the written examination, a Physical/Medical test was also held and only such candidates, who had successfully passed the test, could appear in the written examination. In all, around 18000 candidates had applied, out of which finally more than 17000 candidates actually appeared in the written examination, which was held on 05.04.2015. It appears that after the written examination was over, the examining body i.e. Govind Ballabh Pant Agricultural and Technology University, Pantnagar, Udham Singh Nagar, Uttarakhand (from hereinafter referred to as “University”) had published the answerkey on the website. Since, some of the questions were wrong, therefore, the examining body invited objections from the candidates, who appeared in the examination. Various objections were filed by the candidates alleging that many of the answers given in the answersheet were wrong. According to the learned counsel appearing for the examining body i.e. Mr. Paresh Tripathi, they have received more than 1,000 such objections from the candidates. 4. The matter was placed before the expert body and after hearing all the objections, the expert body came to a conclusion that indeed amongst the choice of answers, at least in four cases answers were either vague or outrightly incorrect. The examining body, in its wisdom, decided to delete the said 4 questions and did not mark any candidate for these questions. A reference to all these 4 questions may not be necessary, but purely in order to place the matter in its right perspective, two example regarding Q No. 190 is as follows :- QNo. 190 Match the following : List I (Organisation) List II (Trade) A. BHEL 1. Atomic B. HAL 2. Electronics C. SAIL 3. Aeronautics D. BPCL 4. Chemicals E. NTPC 5. Iron and Steel Code A B C D E 1. 1 2 3 4 5 2. Atomic B. HAL 2. Electronics C. SAIL 3. Aeronautics D. BPCL 4. Chemicals E. NTPC 5. Iron and Steel Code A B C D E 1. 1 2 3 4 5 2. 2 3 5 4 1 3. 4 2 3 1 5 4. 5 4 3 2 1 5. As per the expert body, none of the choices were correct. The closest choice which is Code No. 4, yet here again, Item No. ‘E’ i.e. National Thermal Power Corporation has been matched against ‘Atomic’, whereas NTPC is a ‘Thermal Power Corporation’. Therefore, initially the answer which was given on the website is 4, but later the expert committee realizing its mistake and deleted it from the 300 questions. Same is the story with the other questions as well, which are not outrightly wrong, but definitely vague. 6. The other question is regarding the place, which reads as under :- “Q.No. 255 The place in Uttarakhand, having largest rainfall is : 1. Narendra Nagar (Pauri) 2. Tehri Garhwal 3. Musoorie 4. Chakrata” 7. The answer, which is closest to the answers (referred above) is “Narendra Nagar” but the examining body has again confused the matters here by writing in bracket District Pauri, whereas Narendra Nagar though admittedly is the place receiving highest rainfall in Uttarakhand is not in District Pauri but in District “Tehri Garhwal”! The examining body was hence of the view that answer to this question too was not precise and this too was hence deleted. 8. Now marks of each of the candidates were examined but not on the basis of 300 marks, but only on the basis of 296 marks, as 4 questions were deleted on the recommendations of the expert committee. 9. After conducting the entire examination and preparing the result, the examining body submitted the result to the Police Department and the Police Department declared the result on 14.05.2015 in which 267 candidates were declared successful for Civil Police, 39 candidates were declared successful for Local Intelligence Unit (L.I.U.) and 42 candidates were declared successful for Platoon Commanders (PAC). 10. All the petitioners in the above bunch of petitions belong to general category except Writ Petition (S/S) No. 945 of 2015, who is a member of Scheduled Caste category and Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1085 of 2015, who belongs to O.B.C. and S.T. category and have applied under their category. 11. 10. All the petitioners in the above bunch of petitions belong to general category except Writ Petition (S/S) No. 945 of 2015, who is a member of Scheduled Caste category and Writ Petition (S/S) No. 1085 of 2015, who belongs to O.B.C. and S.T. category and have applied under their category. 11. The last cutoff marks obtained under different categories, which are relevant for the present case are as under : Sl No. Marks Obtained Category 1. 210.25 General (Male) 2. 175.50 General (Female) 3. 179.25 S.C. (Male) 4. 198.00 O.B.C. 5. 190.75 S.T. 12. The petitioner – Km. Ranjana filed the first writ petition being WPSS No. 834 of 2015 stating therein that she had answered correct answers, which were published by the examining body in its website. She had on her own risk (inasmuch as there was negative marking of 0.25 marks for each wrong answer) answered all the questions (which are under dispute) and all the answers were correct as per the earlier published answer key by the examining body. The marks, however, she has obtained now are 173.75 whereas, she ought to have got 177.75 marks and had she got these marks (4 marks for deleted questions) her marks would have been higher than the last candidate (general female) selected for the post of Civil Police (which is 176.25). 13. The learned Single Judge of this Court while entertaining the writ petition, asking for counter affidavit, had passed the following interim order:- “The petition is admitted for hearing. Let the counter affidavit be filed by all the respondents within three weeks. In the meantime, respondent nos. 1 to 4 are hereby directed to keep one post reserved, which shall be subject to the final adjudication of this petition. It is also directed that the petitioner will implead Ms. Sonia Ghildiyal as respondent no. 5, who will be served through respondent no. 2 and 3. Let the amended memo of petition be filed within three days. After such service, the newly impleaded respondent may also file her counter affidavit, if she chooses to do so. List thereafter. Interim relief application (CLMA 5540/15) stands disposed of accordingly.” 14. Since by the order of this Court one post has been directed to be kept vacant, this had a cascading effect in the entire select list as consequently being affected by the above order, Ms. List thereafter. Interim relief application (CLMA 5540/15) stands disposed of accordingly.” 14. Since by the order of this Court one post has been directed to be kept vacant, this had a cascading effect in the entire select list as consequently being affected by the above order, Ms. Meena Bisht has filed the writ petition being WPSS No. 2270 of 2015 before this Court. The name of the petitioner was in fact published in the select list dated 14.05.2015 for selected candidate as Platoon Commander in PAC, as the petitioner was shown as a last candidate in the general category women having obtained 175.25 marks, but later her name has now been deleted from the select list. According to the petitioner, consequent to the interim order of this Court passed in WPSS No. 834 of 2015 her name has been deleted from the select list. 15. Meanwhile, many of the other petitioners, who were similarly placed as the petitioner in WPSS No. 834 of 2015 (i.e. Km. Ranjana) have also approached this Court raising the same argument i.e. they were liable to be evalutated for entire 300 marks and not for 296 marks, and this evaluation for only 296 marks has adversely and unjustifiably effected them, as either they have given correct answers for all the 4 questions which have been deleted or in some cases for at least 2 or 3 questions and if these marks are added against their names, they were liable to be selected in their category. This is in short, is the case of most of the petitioners in the above petitions. 16. Therefore, what this Court has to examine is whether the examining body i.e. G.B. Pant Agricultural and Technology University was justified under the circumstances to have evaluated the candidates for only 296 marks out of 300 marks or not, and also whether in this so called “corrective measure” adopted by the examining body it has unjustifiably harmed the petitioners before this Court and consequently an interference is liable to be made in their cases! 17. 17. It is indeed true that whenever an objective type question paper is being set with multiple choices, the body which sets these papers must be extremely careful and vigilant while setting the questions and its answer keys, as controversies like the one at hand have also came up earlier as well before this Court, which could have been avoided had the examining body been more careful. 18. Even here, the carelessness and the lack of diligence is apparent on the part of this examining body, but nevertheless under the circumstances when the mistake was pointed out to them in nearly 1000 objections, which they had received, there was no other option for them but to have deleted all those 4 questions. 19. Again, this has been done by a body of experts after weighing the pros and cons in the matter. This Court cannot sit in appeal over the wisdom of this examining body, which in any case has taken a decision, which was a pragmatic decision under the facts and circumstances of the case. 20. Undoubtedly, the border line candidates, which are handful and are now before this Court may have suffered the consequences, but the other choice to award 4 marks to all the candidates, irrespective of the answers, which they had given would again have result in similar litigations. The only other option for the examining body was to cancel the examination and call for a fresh examination. This was neither pragmatic nor wise for many reasons and one of the main reasons would be that many of the candidates, who would subsequently appear in the examination, would have crossed the age bar or may have suffered one kind of disability or the other. It is also not a case where there were allegations of malafide, mass copying, cheating etc. 21. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 in similar matter has cautioned the court in its para no. 38, which reads as under:- “38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. 38, which reads as under:- “38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.” 22. In view of the above, this Court finds no merit in all the petitions except WPSS No. 2270 of 2015. Accordingly, all the writ petitions, except WPSS No. 2270 of 2015, stand dismissed. 23. Consequent to the dismissal of the above writ petitions, the logical consequences would be that the petitioner-Meena Bisht (in WPSS No. 2270 of 2015) will be liable to be selected as her candidature has been kept in abeyance only due to the interim order dated 19.05.2015 passed in WPSS No. 834 of 2015 in the case of Km. Ranjana Vs State of Uttarakhand and others. This interim order is hereby vacated as are all other interim orders passed in all above writ petitions, from time to time. 24. It is made clear, however, that the appointment of Ms. Meena Bisht shall be subject to the verification of her records and documents and also subject to the fact that there is no other impediment to her selection. In case there is none and all her records are in order, she shall be sent for training forthwith. 25. Accordingly, writ petition (WPSS No. 2270 of 2015) is allowed in the above terms.