ORDER : Ajay Rastogi, J. 1. Instant batch of petitions has been filed by such of the candidates who have participated in the selection process initiated by the respondent-Commission holding selection namely Junior Accountant & Tehsil Revenue Accountant Combined Competitive Examination-2013 pursuant to advertisement dt. 18-9-2013 followed with 31-10-2014 & 16-4-2015 (Annx.1). 2. The post of Junior Accountant is included in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Accounts Subordinate Service Rules, 1963 & the post of Tehsil Revenue Accountant is included in the Schedule appended to the Rajasthan Revenue Subordinate Service Rules, 1975 but the conditions of eligibility is one & the same. As per the Schedule appended to the relevant rules & also indicated in the advertisement pursuant to which selection process was initiated, written examination was held on 4-10-2016 consisting of two papers-I & II & each of the paper contains 150 multiple choice questions and after the written examination was held provisional answer key was uploaded by the Commission inviting online objections. 3. After the online objections were received from the candidate who has participated in the selection process pursuant to advertisement followed with corrigendum, the same were placed before the Expert Committee and after taking reports, it was examined by the Commission and select list & final answer key was uploaded on 7-11-2016 & 18-11-2016 respectively. 4. It appears that the candidates were not satisfied with the final answer key which was uploaded by the Commission & approached to this Court by filing instant batch of petitions and a specific statement has been made in the petitions that when the online objections were invited by the Commission against the provisional answer key, the petitioners have raised their objections in respect of certain questions of Paper-I & II respectively but either it remain unnoticed or has not been properly examined by the Commission who was supposed to examine and have placed on record hard copy of their online objections submitted at the initial stage when the provisional answer key was uploaded by the Commission inviting online objections. 5. 5. Taking note of their objections, after the notices of the present batch of petitions being served, it appears that the Commission at its own considered it appropriate to revisit the complaint of the petitioners who have approached to this Court by filing present batch of petitions and on revisiting, finally arrived to a conclusion obviously based on the reports obtained from the Subject Experts & accordingly in Paper-I question No. 31 stands finally deleted at the same time in paper-II question No. 43 earlier it was deleted but on revisiting the question, answer No. 2 has been restored at the same time question No. 133 on revisiting earlier it was answer No. 3 but finally on the opinion of the expert answer No. 4 is restored. 6. Sh. S.N. Kumawat Adv., has placed for perusal of the Court the note-sheet which indicates that other questions were also examined and rest of the questions of Paper-I & II remain unchanged. 7. Sh. S.N. Kumawat Adv., after seeking instructions, has informed to this Court that on account of change which has been given effect to and noticed by this Court, they will revise the select list & so also the answer key as per permission of the Court and further submits that the other questions/answers after revisiting remain unchanged. 8. Counsel for petitioners submits that there was a complaint in regard to question No. 140 of Paper-II and the note-sheet placed for perusal of the Court indicates that report has not come forward and if the Expert does not give report, it certainly can't restore earlier which was accepted by the Commission. 9. The submission of petitioners' counsel is of no substance for the reason that such submissions are never ending and once the fair mechanism has been adopted by the Commission inviting online objections in the first phase and on revisiting, in the second phase of litigation coming to this Court, there is no requirement to keep the issue alive anymore and objections in regard to other questions of Paper-I & II remain unchanged. 10. Counsel for petitioners submits that the Commission at a later stage has permitted to change the category which was not permissible and yet there are such other complaints also. 11. 10. Counsel for petitioners submits that the Commission at a later stage has permitted to change the category which was not permissible and yet there are such other complaints also. 11. This Court is confined to the extent of finalization of the result based on written examination and to be more particularly holding written examination of Paper-I & II has been examined and other objections if any, petitioners are at liberty to avail by taking recourse available to them under the law. 12. After taking note of the submissions made this Court considers it appropriate to direct the respondent Commission to upload the final answer key after taking note of the report which has been noticed by this Court and placed for perusal, along with the revised list of the selected candidates on its official website and proceed further in finalizing the process at the same time it is also expected from the State Government to give appointment to the selected candidates expeditiously. 13. With these directions/observations, the petitions are disposed of. Copy of the order be separately placed in each file.