JUDGMENT : The present writ petition has been filed for declaring the petitioner as pass in JTET Examination 2016 (for class I to V) by giving him two marks for question no. 2 and 147 of SET-V. 2. The factual background of the case as stated in the writ petition is that the Jharkhand Academic Council (in short JAC) vide Advertisement No. 47/2016 dated 31.08.16 advertised JTET Examination 2016 for Class I to V (level-I) and for Class VI to VIII(level-2). As per the Advertisement, pass marks for General category was 60% and for SC, S.T, MBC and other reserved categories was 52%. The petitioner applied for both levels of JTET Examination and opted “Kurmali” as regional language. The examination was held on 20.11.2016 and the petitioner got SET-V of the question sheet. The JAC, before publishing the final result, published the answer key and invited objections from the candidates from 12.12.2016 to 22.12.2016. The petitioner filed objection on the Online Complaint Lodging System on 18.12.2016 against the answers of question no. 147 stating that none of the options is correct. However, the respondent-JAC published the final result wherein the petitioner got 76 marks whereas the pass marks was 78 for MBC category which gives rise to the filing of the present writ petition. 3. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that for the question no. 2 i.e ‘Nilambar Koun Samas Hai?’ the correct answer is 'Bahubrihi' whereas the respondent-JAC declared the answer as ‘Karmadharay’ which is wrong. It is further submitted that the question no. 147 was 'Bihak pare jakrar bhatar mari jaeek’ Aake kina kahal jaeek? No answer option was correct as the correct answer should have been ‘Rarhi’, however the JAC declared ‘Rarh’ as correct answer. It is further submitted that due to the mistake of the respondent-JAC, the petitioner did not qualify in the JTET-2016, although he fully deserves to get pass marks of 78. It is further submitted that mistake in the answer key is intentional only to give undue favour to some candidates. Moreover, the mistake committed by the respondent-JAC is so apparent that even a school student is capable to say that the answer key is wrong. It is further submitted that the respondent-JAC has not replied on the merit of the claim of the petitioner, rather it has raised technical objections. Moreover, the mistake committed by the respondent-JAC is so apparent that even a school student is capable to say that the answer key is wrong. It is further submitted that the respondent-JAC has not replied on the merit of the claim of the petitioner, rather it has raised technical objections. It is also submitted that the petitioner had raised objection through complaint tab in the website vide complaint no. C00002745 dated 18.12.2016 and thereafter he also filed representations on 23.12.2016 and 08.03.2017 before the Secretary and Chairman of JAC raising his grievance, but nothing has been done. The learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his submission puts reliance on the judgment rendered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Sen and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (1984) 2 SCC 319 . 4. Per contra, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-JAC submits that after examination, the model answer key was uploaded in the website of JAC and objections were invited from the candidates vide Advertisement No. 84 of 2016. It is further submitted that the subject expert committee examined all the objections and only thereafter revised model answers were prepared and uploaded on the website of the JAC. It is also submitted that the petitioner has failed to produce any chit of paper in support of his claim that he had filed any representation with regard to his claim. It is further submitted that the entire process of evaluation of marksheet was carried out in a transparent manner and the most appropriate answers have been selected by the experts and thereafter result has been published. 5. Heard the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner appeared in the JTET Examination 2016 for Class I to V (level-I) and for Class VI to VIII (level-2) vide Advertisement No. 47/2016 held on 20.11.2016. The JAC before declaring the result, published the answer key and invited objections. It appears that initially the petitioner had grievance with regard to question nos. 142 and 147 of SET-V for which he filed complaint through Online Complaint Lodging System on 18.12.2016 stating that for question no. 142-more than one options/answers are correct and for question no. 147-none of the given options/answers is correct. It appears that initially the petitioner had grievance with regard to question nos. 142 and 147 of SET-V for which he filed complaint through Online Complaint Lodging System on 18.12.2016 stating that for question no. 142-more than one options/answers are correct and for question no. 147-none of the given options/answers is correct. The JAC after receiving the complaint, referred the matter to the subject experts and each and every complaint was examined by the experts who suggested some modification in the answer key. Thereafter, the revised answer key was published on 01.03.2017. Subsequent to publishing of the revised answer key, the petitioner got aggrieved with the answers of question nos. 2 and 147 and thus filed representation dated 08.03.2017. 6. Before adverting to the merit of the case of the petitioner, it would be appropriate to discuss the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court with regard to the scope of interference by the writ court in such matters. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L Ramesh and Ors. reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 in para 45 held 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 fide has 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 realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters. 7. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid case has circumscribed the scope of judicial interference in such academic matters particularly after the opinion of the expert committee has been taken by the examining body. It has been explicitly held that the court should be slow in interfering with the decision of the expert committee which should be interfered with only when malafide has been alleged against the experts constituting the Committee. In the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 20 held as under:- 20. In the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and Anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in para 20 held as under:- 20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper 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 no.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. 8. The Hon’ble Apex Court, in the aforesaid judgment has held that the High Court should not endeavour to examine the question paper or the answersheet, particularly when the commission has assessed the inter-se-merit of the candidates. 9. In the present case also, if there is any discrepancy in the framing of question or evaluation of answer, it was for all the candidates, however, none except the petitioner, has come before this court to object the same. Though, the petitioner has alleged malafide against the respondent-JAC, it is a settled law that a person who alleges malafide against the administrative bodies, must support the same with cogent evidence which the petitioner has failed to do. Otherwise also, the interference in the examination matter is scarcely exercised by the writ court particularly when the petitioner by way of some unsubstantiated fact alleges unfairness, arbitrariness, unreasonableness against the respondent examining body. If such frivolous petitions are entertained and the writ court sits as an expert body to examine all the objections of the candidate, it will be an endless process opening Pandora box for all unsuccessful candidates. Such an exercise should be an exception otherwise the examination process will never come to an end. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given much stress on his argument that the mistake committed by the respondent JAC is so apparent which can easily be found out by a common person. Such an exercise should be an exception otherwise the examination process will never come to an end. The learned counsel for the petitioner has given much stress on his argument that the mistake committed by the respondent JAC is so apparent which can easily be found out by a common person. I have also perused the judgment of Abhijit Sen (Surpa.) as has been relied upon by the petitioner. In the said judgment it is held that if the key answer shown to be demonstrably wrong such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard the particular answer to be correct, the writ court may consider the said aspect to see the fairness in evaluation of the answer sheet of a particular candidate. However, the learned counsel for the respondent-JAC at the time of argument produced two text books in which word “Nilamber” has been shown as 'Karmdharay Samas'. Thus, it cannot be said that the key answer given by the experts can be said to be demonstrably wrong by a reasonable person versed in the particular subject. 10. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the writ petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.