JUDGMENT : Sudhanshu Dhulia, J. 1. Mr. Niranjan Bhatt, Advocate present for the petitioner. 2. Mr. N.P. Shah, Standing Counsel, present for the State/respondent nos.1 & 2. 3. Ms. Shivangi Gangwar, Advocate, present for the respondent no.3. 4. The petitioner appeared in an examination known as Teacher’s Eligibility Test (in short “TET”), conducted by the Uttarakhand Board of School Education. Qualifying this examination is absolutely mandatory, in case, a person wants to be appointed as a teacher in an Elementary School in Uttarkahand. 5. The petitioner appeared as a Scheduled Caste candidate, scheduled caste candidate has to secure 50 percent of marks in order to qualify this examination and hence out of total 150 marks he must secure 75 marks, as each question carry one mark and there is no negative marking. Petitioner appeared in the examination and had secured 72 marks out of 150 marks. Hence, he was short of three marks and has not been declared qualified. 6. The petitioner, all the same, contends that the answers of three questions have been evaluated wrongly by the respondent authorities. These three questions are as follows:- “6. Errors of learners often indicate:- (A) how they learn (B) socio-economic status of the learners (C) the need for mechanical drill (D) absence of learning 19. The ‘doing’ aspect of behaviour falls in the- (A) Conative domain of learning (B) Affective domain of learning (C) Psychological domain of learning (D) Cognitive domain of learning 29. The stage of cognitive development, according to Piaget, in which child displays “object permanence” is- (A) Sensori motor stage (B) Pre-operational stage (C) Concrete operational stage (D) Formal operational stage” 7. According to the respondent authorities the correct answers for the question nos.6, 19 and 29 are option A, A & A respectively. The petitioner on the other hand contends that to the above question nos.6, 19 and 29 the correct answers are C, D and B, respectively as these were the questions asked in Central Teacher Eligibility Test (in short “CTET”) conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education, New Delhi in which the same questions were asked in which the answer given by the petitioner were held to be correct. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner has already moved its objections before an Expert body. 8. Be that as it may, the petitioner has already moved its objections before an Expert body. The petitioner was heard and the decision has been taken by this Expert body and the contention of the petitioner was rejected. Since the Expert body has already looked into the matter and has rejected the contention of the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter. While holding this view this Court relies upon a judgment of the Hon’ble Apex Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh and others reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 where the Hon’ble Apex Court has observed the following, 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 constitution 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 realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters.” 9. In view of the above, the writ petition stands dismissed.