JUDGMENT : Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J. To pick the threads, unravel and answer the controversy, it will be apposite here to reproduce two orders passed by this Court on 6.4.2017 and 13.4.2017. 2. The order dated 6.4.2017, contain brief facts, contentions raised by counsel for the petitioner, prayer made in the present petition and reasons for issuing notice to the respondents. The order dated 6.4.2017, reads as under:- "The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, praying that a direction be issued to the respondents to re-examine Question Nos. 56 and 95 of Paper-II, of Junior Accountant Examination, 2013, held on 4.10.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner has very fairly stated that regarding examination of Jr. Accountant this Court had already dealt with part of the controversy in bunch of writ petitions, lead case being Rajesh Kumar Sharma v. Secretary, RPSC & Anr., SBCWP No. 3985/2017, decided on 27.3.2017. Briefly stated, the respondent RPSC had issued an advertisement on 18.9.2013, inviting applications for recruitment of Jr. Accountant and Tehsil Revenue Accountant. Petitioner had applied in pursuance of the advertisement and he was issued admission card to appear in the competitive examination. The written competitive examination was held on 4.10.2016. The candidates who appeared in the examination had to solve Paper-I and Paper-II. In the papers to be undertaken by the candidates, Knowledge about Book Keeping, Accounting, Business Management, Auditing, Indian Economics, Rajasthan Civil Services and General Finance and Account Rules and Accounting Rules was to be adjudged. In the present petition, the learned counsel for the petitioner has challenged the answer taken into consideration for evaluating the candidates qua Question Nos. 56 and 95 of Paper-II. Question Nos. 56 and 95 of Paper-II, reads as under:- 56. Which term defines internal audit with clarity? (1) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of the business operation conducted by the internal audit staff. (2) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of the financial statements conducted by the internal audit staff. (3) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of the financial statements only conducted by the external agency. (4) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of operation of business conducted by external audit staff only. 95. What is the percentage of direct and indirect taxes in the gross tax revenue of India in 2014-15? (3) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of the financial statements only conducted by the external agency. (4) Internal audit is an evaluation and analysis of operation of business conducted by external audit staff only. 95. What is the percentage of direct and indirect taxes in the gross tax revenue of India in 2014-15? (1) 40:60 (2) 54:46 (3) 46:54 (4) 60:40 This Court shall first deal with Question No. 56. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the examination was held on 4.10.2016, answer key was uploaded on 6.10.2016. The petitioner had filed objections qua Q.No.56 and result was declared on 7.11.2016. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that since RPSC had received various objections, it constituted an expert panel and expert panel examined the objections and considering the opinion of the expert panel, the RPSC revised the answer key on 18.11.2016 and the revised result was declared on 24.2.2017. Now, the learned counsel for the petitioner has placed on record the report of expert as Annexure-12. The learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that so far Q.No.56 is concerned, RPSC had given option No.1 as correct answer, experts after examining gave opinion to the RPSC that option Nos. 1 and 2 both are correct answers. It is contended that the RPSC has ignored the opinion of the experts and instead of deleting the question, or holding that answer nos. 1 and 2 both are correct, the RPSC for evaluation has persisted that answer Option No.1 is correct answer. The learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that having appointed expert panel, it was necessary for the RPSC to yield to the opinion of the expert and act in consonance with their opinion. It is contended that RPSC could not ignore the opinion of the experts. As to why, opinion of the expert qua Q.No.56 of Paper-II has been ignored, issue notice to the respondent RPSC. On the asking of the court, Mr. Anand Sharma, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent RPSC. A copy of the petition has been served upon him. So far challenge to the Question No.95 is concerned, the same is to be rejected at the outset. The examination was held on 4.10.2016 and answer key was uploaded on 6.10.2016. The petitioner had not filed any objection qua Q.No.95. Anand Sharma, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent RPSC. A copy of the petition has been served upon him. So far challenge to the Question No.95 is concerned, the same is to be rejected at the outset. The examination was held on 4.10.2016 and answer key was uploaded on 6.10.2016. The petitioner had not filed any objection qua Q.No.95. The petitioner accepted the answer given by RPSC to Q.No.95 to be correct. After revision of result, on 24.2.2016, the petitioner stood ousted from the selection process. Now the petitioner had approached this court that this Court should direct the respondent RPSC to examine the answer to Q.No.95. This is fourth round of litigation regarding the correctness of the answers. The selection/recruitment process cannot be an unending process. For the post of Jr. Accountant thousands of candidates had appeared and after each revision one or another candidate shall be dissatisfied and the court cannot stand in the way of recruitment and obstruct outcome of the recruitment process. The very fact that the examination was held on 4.10.2016, thereafter various round of litigation regarding correctness of answer have concluded, this Court will not entertain objections to Question No.95 of the petitioner, as at first opportunity, when chance was given to file objections, the petitioner had not filed the objections to the answer to Q.No.95. Furthermore, expert panel has already determined the objections. To the limited extent as to why report of expert qua Q.No.56 has not been granted sanctity, already this Court had issued the notice in the present case. List for arguments on 12.4.2017. Copy of this order under the seal and signature of the Court Master be handed over to Mr. Anand Sharma, counsel appearing for the respondent RPSC, for onward transmission and necessary compliance." 3. As is apparent from the perusal of the order dated 6.4.2017, the challenge was restricted to Question No.56, which has been reproduced in the order dated 6.4.2017. 4. This Court had specifically put the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as ‘RPSC'), to notice as to why opinion of the expert panel formulated last in time qua Question No.56 of Paper-II has been ignored. 5. Mr. Anand Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent RPSC, after taking instructions had reverted back to this Court on 13.4.2017. 4. This Court had specifically put the respondent Rajasthan Public Service Commission (hereinafter called as ‘RPSC'), to notice as to why opinion of the expert panel formulated last in time qua Question No.56 of Paper-II has been ignored. 5. Mr. Anand Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent RPSC, after taking instructions had reverted back to this Court on 13.4.2017. This Court on 13.4.2017 had passed the following order:- "In pursuance of the order dated 6.4.2017, Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent RPSC has placed on record the communication received by him. The communication received by counsel for the respondent, reads as under:- rF;kRed fooj.k ,l0ch0fl0fj0;k0la0 4867@2017 nsos'k dqekj 'kekZ cuke jk0yks0ls0vk0 Jr. Actt. Exam. This Court on 13.4.2017 had passed the following order:- "In pursuance of the order dated 6.4.2017, Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel appearing for respondent RPSC has placed on record the communication received by him. The communication received by counsel for the respondent, reads as under:- rF;kRed fooj.k ,l0ch0fl0fj0;k0la0 4867@2017 nsos'k dqekj 'kekZ cuke jk0yks0ls0vk0 Jr. Actt. Exam. 2013, paper II mDr ;kfpdk esa fuEu iz'uksRrjksa dks fookfnr crk;k x;k gS%& iz'u la0 ,oa fo"k; vk;ksx dh maRrj dqath fnukad 24-02-2017 esa mRrj fodYi fo'ks"kKksa 1- MkW0 jkts'k tSu 2- MkW xksfoUn izlkn xxZ dh fjiksVZ esa mRrj fodYi 06-10-2016 (Auditing) izFke mRrj dqath ftl ij vkifRr;ka ekaxh xbZ fo'ks"kKksa 1- MkW0 ,y0lh0 ikjokuh 2- MkW0 ds0,y0 uoy dh fjiksVZ esa mRrj fodYi 07-10-2016 (Auditing) fo'ks"kKksa 1- Jh Hkokuh flag 2- MkW deys'k firokuh dh fjiksVZ esa mRrj fodYi 15-12-2016 (Auditing) fo'ks"kKksa 1- izks0 lqeu ikespk 2- izks0 eatqyk feJk dh fjiksVZ esa mRrj fodYi (Economics) cgqer ds vk/kkj ij vk;ksx }kjk fu/kkZfjr mRrj fodYi 56 (Auditing) 1 1 1 01 ,oa 02 rFkk confusing Question Hkh fy[kk gSA & 1 95 (Economics) 2 & & & 2 2 iz'u la0 56 tks fd vads{k.k fo"k; dk gS] ds ckjs esa 6 fo'ks"kKksa ls fjiksVZ izkIr dh xbZ Fkh buesa ls 4 fo'ks"kKksa ls izkIr jk;@fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij ,oa cgqer ls vk;ksx }kjk mRrj fodYi 01 gh fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA vU; 2 fo'ks"kKksa us mRrj fodYi 01 ,oa 02 crk;k Fkk rFkk "hence, question is confusing" Hkh fy[kk gSA vr% mRrj fodYi ^1* cgqer ds vk/kkj ij fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k gSA fo'ks"kKksa dh fjiksVZ layXu gSA iz'u la0 95 tks fd vFkZ'kkL= fo"k; dk gS] ds ckjs esa 3 fo'ks"kKksa ls jk; izkIr dh xbZ] fo'ks"kKksa dh fjiksVZ ds vk/kkj ij mRrj fodYi 02 vk;ksx }kjk fu/kkZfjr fd;k x;k FkkA fo'ks"kKksa dh fjiksVZ layXu gSA bu iz'u ds ckjs esa eku0 mPp U;k0 }kjk blh ;kfpdk esa ikfjr vkns'k fnukad 06-04-2017 esa fuEu izdkj vafdr fd;k gSA ist 4 f}rh; iSjk** This Court will not entertain objections to question No.95 of the Petitioner, as at first opportunity, when chance was given to file objections, the petitioner had not filed the objection to the answer to Q.No.95. Furthermore, expert panel has already determined the objection." A perusal of the above communication reveals that the expert panel constituted on 6.10.2016 had given opinion that qua Question No.56, option No.1 is correct answer. It is further revealed that on 7.10.2016, another expert panel had given opinion that option No.1 to Question No.56 is correct answer. It is stated that third panel was constituted and the said panel on 15.12.2016 gave opinion that option Nos. 1 and 2 both are correct and Question No.56 is a confusing question. The very fact that there was necessity to constitute third expert panel and the said panel held Question No.56 to be confusing by holding that option Nos. 1 and 2 both are correct, the respondent RPSC ought to have followed the opinion of the expert panel which had given opinion last in time. Once there is opinion that question is confusing, purity of examination require that RPSC should act in a larger interest. Before this Court could upset the decision of the respondent RPSC, Mr. Anand Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent RPSC has prayed that a short adjournment be granted to him to file a detailed reply. Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has opposed the grant of adjournment on the ground that already directions have been issued to the respondent RPSC to upload the result at the earliest and they are not doing so, the respondents have already committed willful disobedience of the orders passed by this Court. List this case for arguments on 19.4.2017. Detailed reply be filed on or before the said date." From the perusal of the order dated 13.4.2017, it is apparent that qua Q.No.56, first panel of the experts consisting of Dr. Rajesh Jain and Dr. Govind Prasad Garg, held option No.1 to be correct. Second expert panel consisting of Dr. LC. Parwani and Dr. K.L. Naval also agreed with the first panel of experts and according to them, option No.1 is a correct answer. The first expert panel had given opinion on 6.10.2016 and second expert panel gave its opinion on 7.10.2016. It may be noted here that on 15.12.2016, third expert panel consisting of Mr. Bhawani Singh and Dr. Kamlesh Pitwani, gave opinion that both options No. 1 and 2 are correct and furthermore, question itself is confusing. 6. The first expert panel had given opinion on 6.10.2016 and second expert panel gave its opinion on 7.10.2016. It may be noted here that on 15.12.2016, third expert panel consisting of Mr. Bhawani Singh and Dr. Kamlesh Pitwani, gave opinion that both options No. 1 and 2 are correct and furthermore, question itself is confusing. 6. This Court to enable the learned counsel for the respondent RPSC to file reply, had specifically asked the RPSC to spell rationale to ignore or reject the opinion given by expert panel constituted last in time and as to what was necessity to constitute third panel. 7. In the communication received from the respondent RPSC, which has been reproduced in the order dated 13.4.2017, respondent has taken a stand that regarding correct answer to Q.No.56, decision has been taken on the basis of majority. 8. Regarding constitution of third panel, following averment has been made in the reply, filed by the respondent RPSC:- "G. That however, feeling aggrieved by result of examination, number of persons filed different writ petitions before this Hon'ble Court impugning the validity of answers of different questions. While such writ petitions were pending, it was thought proper by the R.P.S.C. to again constitute an expert panel for re-examining the answer key by taking into consideration, the objections raised in such writ petitions. Such appointment of third expert panel was totally bona fide action on the part of the R.P.S.C., as the R.P.S.C. was keen to resolve the dispute at the earliest and had intention to finalize the process of recruitment by giving rest to all the disputes. Such third panel of experts gave its report on 15.12.2016. So far as question no.56 is concerned, the expert panel was of the view that both Options-1 & 2 given below the question no.56 were correct answers and the question itself was narrated as confusing question." 9. As to why, third panel was constituted, Mr. Anand Sharma, the learned counsel for the respondent RPSC has made the following statement at Bar. The said statement recorded by the court reads as under:- "Mr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent RPSC, at the Bar has stated that numerous writ petitions were pending and during pendency of the writ petitions, to meet the objections raised therein, the Commission had its own appointed third expert panel consisting of two experts namely Mr. Bhawani Singh and Dr. Anand Sharma, learned counsel for the respondent RPSC, at the Bar has stated that numerous writ petitions were pending and during pendency of the writ petitions, to meet the objections raised therein, the Commission had its own appointed third expert panel consisting of two experts namely Mr. Bhawani Singh and Dr. Kamlesh Pitwani. The said expert panel on 15.12.2016, had given their opinion qua Q.No.56." 10. Mr. Raghunandan Sharma, the learned counsel for the petitioner has contended that to disarm the candidates who had challenged the answer to Q.No.56, by filing various writs, the respondent RPSC had taken a stand that suo moto expert panel has been appointed and thus, challenge given by the candidates had gone unanswered by this Court. It is submitted that the stand was taken by RPSC as a ploy to frustrate the challenge made by the candidates by filing writ petition. Counsel for the petitioner has termed action of the respondents as a design to secure disposal of writ petitions pending in this Court. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner that once writ petitions were disposed of, even having obtained opinion of the third expert panel, the respondent RPSC reverted to the rule of majority, as if the respondent RPSC was not wedded to principle of excellence to scout best talent. 11. This Court could have well understood if the members of the respondent RPSC had recorded their differences and had formulated their opinion by the majority but the respondent RPSC was neither drawing draw of lots nor could apply rule of majority once, it had decided to constitute a third panel having its own doubts regarding correctness of answer to the Q.No.56. 12. It will be travesty of the justice that challenge to this question by filing numerous writ petitions was blunted by the respondent RPSC by taking a stand that they have constituted an expert panel. Having obtained the opinion of the expert panel, the respondent RPSC persisted and proceeded with the earlier answer by ignoring the opinion of the third expert panel by saying that the opinion formulated by first and second expert panel is to be accepted by invoking the rule of majority. If that was to be done, what was the need to constitute third expert panel. Majority of opinion was already with RPSC. Constitution of third expert panel was not an idle formality. If that was to be done, what was the need to constitute third expert panel. Majority of opinion was already with RPSC. Constitution of third expert panel was not an idle formality. To illustrate by taking example of Tennis match, two sets were already on the side of RPSC, and what was need to play third set except to frustrate challenge given by the candidates, who had filed the writ petition. 13. Having noted the conduct of the respondent RPSC, it is time to notice whether this Court can take recourse to the judicial review. 14. In the case of multiple choice type question paper, the validity of answer key, on numerous occasions has faced challenge. The law has been well settled by a Division Bench of Delhi High Court in the case of Sumit Kumar v. High Court of Delhi & Anr., W.P.(C) 3453/2016, decided on 9.5.2016. It will be apposite here to reproduce the law summed up by Division Bench of Delhi High Court, in the case of Sumit Kumar (supra) as under:- "7. Before we examine the questions and answers to which objections have been raised, we must elucidate and reflect on the legal position as to the scope and ambit of judicial review when a multiple choice question paper and answer key are questioned. The law on the point is no longer res integra and stands lucidly and clearly exposited in Salil Maheshwari v. High Court of Delhi & Anr., 2014 (145) DRJ 225 in the following words:- "11. Before recording a decision on the merits, the scope of judicial review of an answer key in a test for law graduates, such as for the DJS examination, must be recognized. The law prevailing in this regard is laid down in Kanpur University (supra), in respect of the answer key in a combined medical test in which the four subjects tested were physics, chemistry, zoology and botany. The Court in that case held: "We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text - books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text - books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect. 17. ...Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those textbooks. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong." The aforesaid paragraph refers to a quotation from the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 and holds that three propositions of law emerge. These are:- "12.Three propositions of law emerge from Kanpur University (supra), on the permissible extent of judicial review of an answer key. First, the answer key must be presumed to be correct and must be followed, even in the face of a mere doubt, second, only if a key answer is demonstrably wrong, in the opinion of a reasonable body of persons well-versed in the subject, it may be subject to judicial review, and third, if the answer key is incorrect beyond doubt, then a candidate cannot be penalised for answers at variance with the key. This position was reiterated in Manish Ujwal and Ors. v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 744 and DPS Chawla v. Union of India, 184 (2011) DLT 96." 8. Salil Maheshwari (supra) also dealt with the question of re-valuation and has concluded that the question of re-valuation does not strictly arise when the examination comprises only multiple choice questions. The reason being that multiple choice question test is premised on the basis that there is only one, objective correct answer to every question. Salil Maheshwari (supra) also dealt with the question of re-valuation and has concluded that the question of re-valuation does not strictly arise when the examination comprises only multiple choice questions. The reason being that multiple choice question test is premised on the basis that there is only one, objective correct answer to every question. The system of multiple choice objective type test and scope and ambit of judicial review was examined in Kanpur University's case (supra), and illuminated the following words: "18. ... Fourthly, in a system of 'Multiple Choice Objective-type test', care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer. It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes' or 'no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal." In Salil Maheshwari (supra), after referring to the aforesaid quotation from Kanpur University (supra), it has been observed:- "22. The very finding that a key answer is not the objective, single, correct answer of the four options provided, and that another answer is "correct" according to those well-versed in the subject, itself would merit the awarding of additional marks to candidates who had chosen the latter answer. There arises no need to "evaluate" or examine a response of a candidate for a second time, since all candidates who have answered in accordance with the answer key that the experts in the field affirm, are automatically entitled to the award of additional marks. The precedents on re-evaluation are only applicable in the context of examinations which permit subjective written answers, and not objective, multiple-choice questions that permit the selection of just one "correct" answer. There would be no infirmity in the approach of a Court that directs reassessment, such as in Kanpur University (supra) itself, on the ground that the answer key is incorrect. In the present case, this court has recorded findings on each of the three questions, to say that the answer keys used for correcting the question papers used one single correct answer; the alternative options cannot be said to be unambiguously clear answers, so as to result in confusion on the part of the examinee, who attempted the preliminary test" 15. This Court need not apply the standard test of demonstrable wrong or palpably wrong as the third panel constituted by the respondent RPSC to ward off all challenge, in various writ petitions, itself has held that option Nos. 1 and 2 both are correct and the question is confusing. Thus, question No.56 has been termed by expert panel to be confusing, hence, said question is not clear, unequivocal and unambiguous. That being so, there is no other option with this Court but to strike Q.No.56 from the Question Paper. Hence, a direction is issued that the said question No.56 shall be deleted and revised result shall be prepared and declared by the respondent RPSC to end simmering and long standing grievance of the candidates that RPSC is not capable of conducting papers upto the highest standard. 16. Till today, RPSC has conducted more than hundred competitive examinations, for recruitment of various posts. Till today there is not a single examination, where due to challenge made to this Court or Supreme Court, RPSC has not revised the result. Sometimes RPSC has to revise result for more than four times. Each competitive examination open flood gates of litigation, which result into various rounds of litigation. Revised result prepared by expert panel again lead to challenge resulting to re-revision of the result. Time has come for the court to ring alarm bell. Those who are at helm of affairs at RPSC, must now awake from their slumber. They must tread with caution, to select paper setter. The experts selected ought to be persons of eminence. Doling out of favours to incompetent persons as paper setters or experts must end once for all. 17. Taking totality of circumstances and reasons spelt above, the writ petition is allowed with cost of Rs.5 Lakhs. The cost shall be deposited with the Secretary, Rajasthan Legal Services Authority, within one month, as at instance of RPSC unnecessary unwanted litigation has been generated, leading to filing of numerous writ petitions. Lot of time and energy of this court has been wasted by deciding the writ petitions and the appeals arising therefrom, which could have been avoided, had RPSC ensured highest standards.