ORDER : Nirmaljit Kaur, J. All the above mentioned writ petitions shall stand decided by this common order as the issue involved is identical. 2. The respondent No. 1 - Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short "the respondent-commission" hereinafter) published advertisement dated 16.10.2015 for the recruitment of the School Lecturer for various subjects to be appointed under the Secondary Education Department, Government of Rajasthan, for which the online examination forms were invited from the eligible candidates. The respondent-commission conducted the competitive examination at various centers at all district headquarters of Rajasthan on 17.07.2016 for the subject of General Awareness and General Studies (Paper-I) and then for various other subjects. The respondent-commission published the answer key on 03.08.2016. Thereafter, the respondent - commission published the press-note at its website and called online objections regarding the answer key. Many candidates submitted their online objections at the website of the respondent - commission. The result of the said competitive examination was declared on 22.09.2016. Number of writ petitions were filed with the common grievance that in the competitive examination held, answers as per answer key disclosed qua papers set out by the RPSC, is against the answers given in the well accepted text books and other material on the subject. All the writ petitions were disposed by way of a common Order dated 08.11.2016 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 15028 of 2016 (Arvind Kumar & ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & ors.) & other connected petitions with the following directions :- "This Court rejects the argument raised by Mr. M.F. Baig believing in the fairness of the persons at the helm of the affairs at RPSC, as this Court believes that the RPSC has nothing to hide in their cupboard. Transparency not only inspire confidence of the persons in the system but also ensure that merit is only yardstick to which RPSC is committed and RPSC shall make every effort that the teachers are spotted on the touchstone of merit alone. This Court shall follow the maxim that fairness in recruitment should not only be followed but should also appear to have been followed. Therefore, to achieve highest standards of transparency, following directions are issued :- (a) That the revised answer key along with report of experts shall be uploaded on the website of RPSC within one week from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Therefore, to achieve highest standards of transparency, following directions are issued :- (a) That the revised answer key along with report of experts shall be uploaded on the website of RPSC within one week from the receipt of certified copy of this order. (b) That after the needful is done by the RPSC, no objections shall be entertained by RPSC and the revised answer key shall be final and shall be followed by RPSC for computation of the result. (c) That only qua the answer to the question which as per revised answer key is palpably wrong and is unacceptable to the experts having authority in the subject, court shall be able to entertain the challenge made to the revised answer key and if two views are possible due credence shall be given to the one view if same is in consonance with the revised answer key approved by the experts. (d) That for a period of fifteen days, after uploading of the revised answer key, the computation of the result shall be kept in abeyance to enable any aggrieved person to approach the court in case revised answer key to a question is palpably wrong and is against all the accepted principles or cannons of the subject. (e) That in pursuance of the selection made, any appointment/posting letter already issued, shall be kept in abeyance for a period of fifteen days from receipt of certified copy of this order by RPSC and the State Government." 3. In pursuance thereof, the final answer key was published by the respondent-Commission on 18.11.2016. Still aggrieved, the above mentioned writ petitions have been filed by the unsuccessful candidates who did not find their names in the revised select list with the following main objections :- A. There were 75 questions of 150 marks in Paper-I and 150 questions of 300 marks in Paper-II. The respondents have deleted as many as 18 questions out of 75 at the rate of 24% for the first paper i.e. General Awareness and General Studies, which has vitiated the concept of competition in direct recruitment. The competitive examinations are subject to negative markings. Those candidates who have attempted these questions which have been deleted by the respondent - commission are being certainly benefited by the deletion and those who attempted the right answers are being penalized. The competitive examinations are subject to negative markings. Those candidates who have attempted these questions which have been deleted by the respondent - commission are being certainly benefited by the deletion and those who attempted the right answers are being penalized. B. Those questions which should not have been deleted have been deleted, whereas, there are other questions which are required to be deleted but have not been deleted. C. Besides, the objections raised qua the first paper i.e. General Awareness & General Studies with respect to the Question Nos. 1, 3, 5, 11, 15, 18, 21, 22, 24, 25, 28, 33, 43, 48, 49, 53, 54, 57, 58, 61, 60, 65, 66, 69, 70, 72, 73 & 74, similar objections have been raised qua 09 questions with respect to the subject Commerce (Paper-II) i.e. Question Nos. 22, 25, 28, 56, 82, 106, 121, 128 & 141. For the subject Rajasthani (Paper-II), the objections have been raised qua 10 questions i.e. Question Nos. 8, 21, 57, 82, 119, 121, 133, 137, 142 & 148. The objections have also been raised qua 10 questions with respect to the subject History (Paper-II) i.e. Question Nos. 10, 40, 41, 49, 91, 100, 101, 103, 123 & 149, 06 questions with respect to the subject Biology (Paper-II) i.e. Question Nos. 11, 21, 41, 45, 46 & 51. Qua the subject Political Science (Paper-II), the dispute has been raised qua 10 questions i.e. Question Nos. 2, 16, 19, 33, 51, 55, 65, 109, 118 & 122. For Hindi (Paper-II), the dispute has been raised with respect to 09 questions i.e. Question Nos. 5, 51, 89, 92, 93, 105, 107, 112 & 148 and qua the subject English (Paper-II), the dispute has been raised qua 23 questions. D. In Writ Petition No. 12481/2016, one of the arguments raised is that 83.33% questions are from one particular guide book in the subject of Political Science. E. In Writ Petition No. 14728/2016, the report of the Expert Committee has been challenged on the ground that deletion of such huge number of questions as well as the fact that there are other questions which should not have been deleted but have been deleted show the ambiguity that the expert report is palpably wrong and deserves to be set aside. There are ambiguous questions and some questions are out of syllabus. 4. There are ambiguous questions and some questions are out of syllabus. 4. Reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & ors. reported in 2014 (1) WLC (Raj.) 349 vide which the appeals filed by the State and the respondent-Commission against the order of the learned Single Bench passed in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma and ors. v. State of Rajasthan & anr. reported in 2013(5) WLC (Raj.) 25 were dismissed and the appeals filed by the writ-petitioners were allowed and disposed of quashing the entire selection process including the screening/written test conducted by the respondent - RPSC, as well as the judgment rendered in the case of Mithu Singh & ors. v. The State of Rajasthan & anr. (D.B. Civil Special Appeal (Writ) No. 656 of 2015) & another connected appeal decided on 04.05.2016. The judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690 was quoted to argue that the High Court was within its' power to mould the relief and issue directions necessary to maintain the purity of the selection process in a case where the result was vitiated by the application of an erroneous key. Similarly, the reliance was placed on the judgment rendered by the Apex Court in the case of Kanpupr University, Through Vice-Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and others reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 vide which the appeals of the University as well as State against the order of the High Court for reassessment of the particular questions were dismissed. 5. Reply has been filed by the respondents. They have vehemently opposed the writ petitions stating that the correctness of answer key is not open to judicial review. It is well settled principle of law that the Court will not substitute its own view in place of the answers provided in the answer key and at the most, the Court can direct the Commission to refer the matter to the expert committee whose opinion in the matter shall be final. It is well settled principle of law that the Court will not substitute its own view in place of the answers provided in the answer key and at the most, the Court can direct the Commission to refer the matter to the expert committee whose opinion in the matter shall be final. In the instant case also, the Commission on receipt of the certain representations from the unsuccessful candidates had referred the matter for the opinion of the expert committee and on the basis of the report of the expert committee, the result was revised. Now, the petitioners are challenging the report of the expert committee, which is not open for judicial review. 6. Learned counsel for the parties were heard at length and the objections of the petitioners qua the respective questions and the report of the Expert Committee placed before this Court both by the petitioners and the respondents qua those particular questions in the table format were gone into with the help of the learned counsels for the parties. 7. The common prayer of the petitioners is that the respondents be directed to re-conduct and reorganize the various examination papers or in the alternative, to re-evaluate those papers and thereafter, re-publish the answer key. 8. This is a second round of litigation as noticed above. After the result of the petitioners was declared, some of the unsuccessful candidates had filed the writ petitions before the Jaipur Bench of this Court. The lead case being Arvind Kumar & ors. (supra) was disposed of with certain directions, as above. In pursuance to the said order, report of the expert committee and the final answer key of the first and second paper was published on 18.11.2016 as also qua other subjects. 9. To begin with, at the first instance, this Court deems it proper to take up the first paper being common to all. Final answer key of this paper was published on 18.11.2016. Apparently, the respondent-Commission had deleted 18 questions out of 75 in Paper-I. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even after deleting 18 questions, certain other questions are also objectionable, which have not been rectified or settled by the respondent-commission. Final answer key of this paper was published on 18.11.2016. Apparently, the respondent-Commission had deleted 18 questions out of 75 in Paper-I. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that even after deleting 18 questions, certain other questions are also objectionable, which have not been rectified or settled by the respondent-commission. Accordingly, this Court proceeded to examine the disputed questions as under :- Question No. 1 - The diameter of the wheel of a car is 84 cm and the speed of car is 72 km/h. The no. of revolutions made by the wheel in 11 minutes is – (1) 5000 (2) 500 (3) 6000 (4) 600 10. The said question was deleted being out of syllabus. As per the opinion of the Committee, it was based on speed, time, distance and relation, which was not included in the syllabus. The copy of the syllabus has also been referred. Question No. 3 - Water in a canal, 6 M wide and 1.5 m deep, is flowing with a speed of 10 Km/h. If 8 cm of standing water is needed, then how much area will it irrigate in 30 minutes. (1) 76.56 hectares (2) 80.76 hectares (3) 91.47 hectares (4) 56.25 hectares The objection of the petitioners was overruled by the Expert Committee as the same was found to be within the syllabus as a bare perusal of the syllabus revealed that the volume of cuboid was part of the syllabus. Question No. 5 - Bhagi Lal Pandya was associated with which Prajamandal Andolan ? (a) Mewar Prajamandal Andolan (b) Banswara Prajamandal Andolan (c) Jaipur Prajamandal Andolan (d) Dungarpur Prajamandal Andolan 11. The question that it was wrongly deleted too was not accepted as it was held by the Expert Committee that the topic prajamandal is not mentioned in the syllabus and a bare perusal of the syllabus revealed that in Paper I, Part I - General Awareness and General Studies, there is no mention of Prajamandal. Question No. 18 - Genetic engineering is concerned with the alteration of (1) Carbohydrates (2) Organic acids (3) Nucleic acids (4) Lipids 12. The objection of the petitioners that it was out of syllabus was overruled by the Expert Committee as the same related to the topic of heredity and was found to be within the syllabus. Question No. 18 - Genetic engineering is concerned with the alteration of (1) Carbohydrates (2) Organic acids (3) Nucleic acids (4) Lipids 12. The objection of the petitioners that it was out of syllabus was overruled by the Expert Committee as the same related to the topic of heredity and was found to be within the syllabus. Question No. 21 – 1- Dyksjh & csathu o dyksjksQkeZ 2- Dyksjh & csathu o DykjksehFksu 3- Dyksjks & csathu o Dyksjy 4- Dyksjks & csathu o ch ,p lh 13. It is not disputed that the answer given in the revised key is as per the authentic books but it is objected on the ground that the same is out of syllabus. Hence, it should have been deleted. The expert committee has specifically stated that the said question pertains to 'Protection of Environment' and hence, the same is part of the syllabus. Question No. 22 - Bt, in Bt. Plant means : (1) Biotechnology (2) Bacillus thuringiensis (3) Botanical technology (4) Bharat technology 14. The objection that it should have been deleted has been held to be unsustainable as it was found that the same falls under the head of the biodiversity and sustainable development and therefore, was very much part of the syllabus. Question No. 24 - It was held to be rightly deleted as 'Vakyansh' was not part of the syllabus. 1- c`Hkq{kq 2- e`eq{kq 3- ftxh"kq 4- e`eq"kqZ Question No. 25 - 1- fu $ fpar $ rk 2- fu% $ fpar $ rk 3 fu'k $ fpar $ rk 4- fu% $ fpUr $ rk 15. The objection was that the question and the options provided for answer of the question were erroneous and not specific and it was to be deleted but the respondent - Commission by creating the language of their own have marked option No. (ii) as the correct answer. As per the commission, the objection to this question has been dealt with by the expert committee in detail and the same is self explanatory. Question No. 28 - Choose from the options a suitable word for the expression given below ; Undue favour shown by holder of high office to his relatives (1) Nepotism (2) Oligarchy (3) Perjury (4) Vandalism 16. As per the objection raised by the petitioners, the question is out of syllabus and therefore, the same should have been deleted. Question No. 28 - Choose from the options a suitable word for the expression given below ; Undue favour shown by holder of high office to his relatives (1) Nepotism (2) Oligarchy (3) Perjury (4) Vandalism 16. As per the objection raised by the petitioners, the question is out of syllabus and therefore, the same should have been deleted. Whereas, the expert committee specifically held the term to be falling under the heading of 'confusable words' and the said topic is within the syllabus except that it is differently framed. Question No. 33 - Which of the following statement is not true about the Quit India Movement ; (1) it was launched after the failure of Cripps India Mission (2) In several districts "Independent" Government were proclaimed. (3) Gandhiji led this movement in spite of being in jail. (4) Socialist members of the Congress were active in the underground resistance. 17. As per the Expert Committee, it rightly held the Option No. (iii) to be the correct answer for the reason that after detention of Mahatma Gandhi and other congress leaders, the Bharat Choro Andholan became leaderless. The expert committee in this regard has relied on book titled "History of Freedom movement in India" written by Tarachand which is an authoritative literature on the freedom movement in India. Question No. 43 - Which are the features of Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojana (i) Scheme launched on 2 October 2014 (ii) Focus on community participation (iii) Aims to develop five Adarsh Grams chosen by Mps by March, 2019 (iv) it is an infrastructure centered scheme (v) Aims at holistic development of the village Select the correct answer by using the codes given below : (1) (i), (ii) and (v) (2) (ii) and (v) (3) (i), (iii) and (iv) (4) (i), (ii), (iii) and (v) 18. The question related to the fact as to which are the features of Sansad Adarsh Gram Yojana. According to the petitioners, only point No. (v) is true about Sansad Adarsha Gram Yojana and not (ii) & (v) as suggested by the experts. In this regard, the petitioners have relied upon certain web page which in itself does not in any manner proves that point No. (ii) is incorrect, in fact the said material substantiate the view expressed by the Experts. In this regard, the petitioners have relied upon certain web page which in itself does not in any manner proves that point No. (ii) is incorrect, in fact the said material substantiate the view expressed by the Experts. Question No. 49 - Bureaucratic neutrality implies (i) No association of administrators with any political party (ii) Administrators not expressing any views in public on political issues (iii) Administrators should take objective decision on all socio-economic matters. (iv) Administrators should give correct advice to Ministers Select the correct answer by using the codes given below : (1) (i), (ii) and (iii) (2) (ii), (iii) and (iv) (3) (i) and (ii) (4) Only (i) 19. The expert committee held option No. (iv) to be incorrect but accepted (i) to be correct According to the petitioners, all the options given to it were correct but the Expert Committee has wrongly accepted option No. (i) to be correct. There was no reason to disregard the opinion expressed by the experts. Option (iv) prescribes to their duty and may not define 'neutrality'. This question is also discussed in later part of the judgment. Question No. 53 - Which of the following is not an objective of Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan (RMSA) (i) Removing gender gaps (ii) Removing economic and disability barriers (iii) Universal retention of secondary level education by 2020. (iv) Universal access to senior secondary level education by 2017. 20. It was submitted on behalf of the commission that since there were large number of objections regarding the variance in version of the option, the expert committee in their wisdom recommended deletion of the said question as had it been retained it would have definitely caused prejudice to a large number of candidates who had opted Hindi as a medium of language. Question No. 54 - Which of the following is incorporated in the school mapping (i) Spatial and instructional facilities (ii) Demographic dimension (iii) Spatial and demographic dimension (iv) Norms, spatial and demographic dimension 21. It was submitted that this question was also recommended to be deleted by the expert committee for the reason that there was variance in the English and Hindi version of the question and answer given in the options. It was submitted that this question was also recommended to be deleted by the expert committee for the reason that there was variance in the English and Hindi version of the question and answer given in the options. Question No. 58 - Minimum number of working hours per week for the teacher in RTE Act, 2009 is (i) 35 teaching plus preparation hours (ii) 40 teaching plus preparation hours (iii) 45 teaching hours (iv) 45 teaching plus preparation hours 22. As per the Gazette notification placed on record by the petitioners, the minimum number of working hours per teacher in RTE Act 2009 is 45 teaching including preparation hours. However, option No. (iii) also does not specifically mention that 45 teaching hours include preparation hours and since there was ambiguity in option No. (iii) & (iv), the experts in their wisdom and as per the material relied on found option no. (iv) to be the correct. This question too is discussed in later part of the judgment. Question No. 60 - As per Norms & Standards of RTE Act, 2009 for primary section (1st to 5th Class) number of teachers upto 200 students should be (i) 4 (ii) 5 (iii) 6 (iv) 7 23. As per the provisions of RTE Act, 2009 for 121-200 students for Classes 1st to 5th, the number of teachers should be 5 and therefore, Option No. (ii) should have been marked as the correct answer. The expert committee taking into consideration the provisions of RTE Act opined that since in the options given, the Head Master has not been included and therefore, the correct strength of the teachers for 200 students cannot be given. Question No. 61 - Which of the following institutes has been declared as Academic Authority of State under Clause 29(i) of RTE Act, 2009. (i) BSER (Board of Secondary Education) (ii) SIERT (iii) SSA (Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan) (iv) RMSA (Rashtriya Madhyamik Shiksha Abhiyan) 24. The expert committee after taking into consideration the objections recommended that Question No. 61 may be deleted as more than two options to the question are correct. Question No. 65 - Which statement is more appropriate in regards to guiding principles of NCF - 2005. (i) Linking knowledge with outside school life. (ii) To ensure that learning is free from craming. (iii) To make examination system more flexible and link it with classroom activities. Question No. 65 - Which statement is more appropriate in regards to guiding principles of NCF - 2005. (i) Linking knowledge with outside school life. (ii) To ensure that learning is free from craming. (iii) To make examination system more flexible and link it with classroom activities. (iv) All the statements are correct. 25. The objection of the petitioners was that this question has wrongly been deleted as the question is well within the syllabus and the correct answer to the question is Option (iv). The expert committee opined that in the entire syllabus, there is no reference to NCF 2005 and expert committee opined that this question was to be deleted. Question No. 66 - Under continuing Education and Literacy Department in "Sakshar Bharat Karyakram", which of the following components were additionally incorporated (i) Electoral and Financial Literacy (ii) Legal Literacy (iii) Disaster Management and Securities of citizens (iv) All of these 26. The objection of the petitioners was that this question has wrongly been deleted. As per the expert committee, it has rightly deleted this question from assessment for the reason that this is not within the syllabus. Question No. 69 - The renowned "Satyarth Prakash" written by Swami Dayanand Saraswati was published from (i) Ajmer (ii) Jodhpur (iii) Udaipur (iv) Jaipur 27. The expert committee recommended that this question may be deleted as more than two options to the question are correct. Question No. 70 - Archaeologist who contributed to excavation at Kalibanga during 1950-53 is : (i) Daya Ram Sahani (ii) John Marshal (iii) Dr. Neelkanth Shastri (iv) Amlanand Ghosh 28. The objection of the petitioners was that this question has wrongly been deleted. The expert committee has opined that this question is out of syllabus as ancient Rajasthan and Kalibanga is not part of the syllabus. Question No. 72 - Who was the main architect of Kumbhalgarh fort. (i) Vidyadhar (ii) Mandan (iii) Keshavdas (iv) Mahendra 29. The objection of the petitioners was that this question has wrongly been deleted as Option No. (ii) is the correct answer to the question. The expert committee has opined that the question is out of syllabus as architecture of Rajasthan is not part of the syllabus. Question No. 74 - In whose president-ship Haroti praja-mandal was founded (i) Nayanuram Sharma (ii) Saraswati Das (iii) Arjunlal Sethi (iv) Manikyalal Verma 30. The expert committee has opined that the question is out of syllabus as architecture of Rajasthan is not part of the syllabus. Question No. 74 - In whose president-ship Haroti praja-mandal was founded (i) Nayanuram Sharma (ii) Saraswati Das (iii) Arjunlal Sethi (iv) Manikyalal Verma 30. The objection to this question has already been dealt with along with Question No. 5. 31. The remaining questions i.e. question Nos. 11, 15, 48, 57 and 73 were deleted. In fact, 18 questions in total are deleted. Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, argued that as a consequence of the 18 questions out of 75 having been deleted, the marks of the deleted questions have been distributed in remaining questions proportionately making it 2.63 marks for each question. The paper-I was divided in five parts and these parts were carrying different weightage marks. Any meritorious candidate who has answer the deleted questions asked amongst the five sections as per the scheme of the examination correctly has been put on the same pedestal to that of the candidate who has answered these questions wrong. In these circumstances, the adoption of dividing the marks on pro-rata basis would not cure the defect in the examination as it clearly put meritorious candidates in a disadvantageous position. The said argument has to be rejected outright. The deletion of the question and the distribution of their marks proportionately in remaining questions does not discriminate between the candidates. All are treated similarly and equally applies to all. The deleted questions stand deleted qua all the aspirants. None of the candidates are allotted marks on the basis of these deleted questions. Hence, no ground is made out to interfere on the basis of deleted questions. 32. Similarly, the objections qua each of the disputed questions of subject Hindi (Paper-II) have been dealt with by the expert committee and duly supported by the text books and other admitted authentic material. After seeing the detailed discussion on each of the disputed questions of Paper-I by the expert committee while coming to a conclusion as to whether said question is required to be deleted or not and as to which would be the proper and correct answer, this Court does not deem it necessary to even go into each and every questions of other subjects and is satisfied with the report of the Expert Committee. Regarding 02 or 03 questions specially Question Nos. Regarding 02 or 03 questions specially Question Nos. 49 and 58 of Paper-I, learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently argued that the said answers are confusing and that both questions should have been either deleted or the answers as mentioned by the petitioners should have been taken into consideration, but this Court may notice the Order dated 08.11.2016 passed by the learned Single Bench in the case of Arvind Kumar & ors. (supra) disposing the first round of petitions by observing that "only qua the answer to the question which as per revised answer key is palpably wrong and is unacceptable to the experts having authority in the subject, court shall be able to entertain the challenge made to the revised answer key and if two views are possible due credence shall be given to the one view if same is in consonance with the revised answer key approved by the experts." As noticed above and as is evident from the report, the expert committee has exercised due diligence and applied their mind duly supported by authentic text books and other material. Once the expert committee has examined the entire issue having the expertise in the particular subject, this Court after looking into the said report is not required to sit in appeal over the report specially when the respondent-commission has demonstrated from the authentic material that the final answer key is in consonance with the authentic text books. In fact, the respondents have also produced the names of the experts in a sealed cover for the perusal of this Court. This Court has no doubt about the qualification, expertise and the capability of the members of the said expert committee who have gone into the disputed questions. 33. The legal issue involved is well settled. The Apex Court in the case of N. Lokanadham v. Chairman, Telecom Commissioner & another reported in 2008 (5) SCC 155 held that the Courts have limited jurisdiction in these matters and it is for the experts to clear the ambiguity and no relief can be granted on mere assumption. 33. The legal issue involved is well settled. The Apex Court in the case of N. Lokanadham v. Chairman, Telecom Commissioner & another reported in 2008 (5) SCC 155 held that the Courts have limited jurisdiction in these matters and it is for the experts to clear the ambiguity and no relief can be granted on mere assumption. The observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Lokanadham (supra) with respect to the questions being out of syllabus were as under :- "...........Furthermore, assuming there was some ambiguity in the prescribed syllabus, it would have been for an expert body to clear the same and in the event it is found that any question has been put out of syllabus, only those who could not answer the same might have been entitled to any relief. No relief in a case of this nature could have been granted on assumptions. It was not for the Tribunal to pass an order only on the supposition that the appellant did not prepare themselves well owing to some misunderstanding in regard to the extent of syllabus". 34. The Division Bench of the Punjab & Haryana High Court in the case of Khatri Saurabh Satyapal v. Haryana Public Service Commission and another (LPA No. 236 of 2009) and other connected appeals decided on 06.04.2009 relied upon the observations of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of N. Lokanadham (supra) and dismissed the appeals wherein it was pointed out that 45 questions were out of syllabus. 35. After examining the various judgments of the Apex Court in almost similar set of circumstances wherein the expert committee had prepared the answer key after a detailed examination of the disputed questions, the Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Umesh Kumar Sharma and ors. v. Sudarshan Gaur & ors. reported in 2016 (3) RLW 2090 (Raj.) refused to entertain the challenge to the answer key by observing in Para 34 as under :- "34. v. Sudarshan Gaur & ors. reported in 2016 (3) RLW 2090 (Raj.) refused to entertain the challenge to the answer key by observing in Para 34 as under :- "34. In the backdrop of the fact that the expert committee had reviewed the answers to these questions, particularly, in the context of the objections lodged by the candidates to the model answer key, as permitted by the order dated 9.10.2012 passed in Hanuman Ram Choudhary (supra) with the caveat that no further opportunity to impeach the questions finalized on the receipt of the expert comments would be allowable, we are firmly disinclined to entertain the challenge to the final answer key published on 19.11.2012, as endeavoured by the unsuccessful candidates. Not only, to reiterate, by order dated 9.10.2012, this Court in Hanuman Ram Choudhary (supra), had allowed the Commission to further the process which, in our comprehension, did denote its intention to finalize the same on the basis of the exercise to be undertaken by expert committee to revisit the disputed questions and the answers thereto, no concession of error on the part of the government and/or the Commission, as asserted, vis-a-vis the final comments of the expert committee ensuing in the answer key of 19.11.2012, is also discernible on the face of the records. The interpretation and the understanding of the questions and the answers thereto of the expert committee, has to be construed to be final in all respects and any inference to the contrary thereto, in our estimate, cannot be sustained. As it is, having regard to the framework of the impugnment in Praveen Singh (supra) and the exhaustive determination of all relevant aspects pertaining thereto, the renewed attempt on the part of the writ petitioners in the instant appeals, if entertained even otherwise, would be repugnant to the law of binding precedent and constructive res judicata. On merits as well, in view of the expert committee's recommendations on the disputed questions, we see no cogent or convincing reason to reopen the exercise already concluded with the declaration of the results on 18.11.2012 and publication of the final answer key on 19.11.2012." 36. On merits as well, in view of the expert committee's recommendations on the disputed questions, we see no cogent or convincing reason to reopen the exercise already concluded with the declaration of the results on 18.11.2012 and publication of the final answer key on 19.11.2012." 36. The courts have been warning time and again that in the circumstances like the present, it would be wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to experts who are more familiar of the technicalities/nature of the work, unless and until malafide is alleged against the experts. 37. The Larger Bench of this Court in the case of Lalit Mohan Sharma & ors. v. R.P.S.C. & ors. reported in 2006 (1) CDR 834 (Raj.) (FB) too while dealing with the writ petition praying for rectifying the mistakes in the result by correcting the answer key observed that the Court is not an expert in the field of education and the various subjects from which the question paper was settled and in absence of any allegations, whatsoever, that members constituting the committee had no specialization in the concerned subject and nor was any allegation of bias against them, no occasion arose for the court to probe the matter. Para 20 of the said judgment is relevant :- "20. In the context of impressive array of facts, as fully detailed above, we are not inclined to accept the contention raised on behalf of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners that the key answers provided by the respondent-Commission for evaluating the answer-sheets of the petitioners were wrong or that despite there being a report by the Expert Committee the Court must take in hand the exercise of finding out as to whether the key answers are correct or wrong. There is no need to go into the plea raised by the petitioners for examining the disputed questions and the authenticity of the keyanswers provided by the respondent Commission in view of the report of the Expert Committee constituted for the propose. Surely, the Court is not an expert in the field of education and the various subjects for which the question paper written statement settled. Expert Committee constituted for the purpose has given its report based upon recognised text books authored by persons of repute in the field. Surely, the Court is not an expert in the field of education and the various subjects for which the question paper written statement settled. Expert Committee constituted for the purpose has given its report based upon recognised text books authored by persons of repute in the field. There is no allegation, whatsoever that the members constituting the Committee did not know or had no specialization in the concerned subjects nor is there any allegation of bias against them. In the facts and circumstances of the case, no occasion at all arises for the Court to further probe the matter. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners needs thus no further comments. Suffice is it, however, to motion that while urging that the key-answers provided by the respondent Commission are wrong, all that is being urged is that in some of the recognised test book or books of repute, different answers of the concerned questions have been provided. Assuming what has been urged by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners to be correct, it would neither be permissible nor just and proper to interfere and other re-evaluation of the answer sheets." 38. With respect to the one of the arguments raised in the Writ Petition No. 12481/2016, as mentioned above, that 83.33% questions were from one particular guide book in the subject of Political Science, it has been specifically stated in the reply that the question paper set by the answering respondent was not ad verbatim to the questions published in the guide books and that the claim was made without verifying the fact as they have simply relied upon the advertisement issued by the publishers. It is a common practise by the guide book publishers to claim that large number of questions in an important selection are taken from their own guide books. This issue came up before the learned Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rewant Dan v. R.P.S.C. & ors. It is a common practise by the guide book publishers to claim that large number of questions in an important selection are taken from their own guide books. This issue came up before the learned Single Bench of this Court at Jaipur Bench in the case of Rewant Dan v. R.P.S.C. & ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 8786 of 2011) & 05 other connected petitions decided on 04.07.2012 wherein while rejecting the argument, the learned Single Bench held as under :- "In totality of the circumstances, even if it is accepted that many of the questions may have similarity to the questions from one or the other guide book, selection conducted by the respondent Commission cannot vitiate only on that ground unless it is shown and proved that candidates were given impression to read a particular guide book to be successful in the selection. In that eventuality, particular book gets importance so as the writer/author. However, no such circumstances are alleged herein other than that few writers were earlier paper setter for the RPSC but merely for that reason it cannot be termed that every candidate was knowing this fact so as to read a particular guide book. In the aforesaid circumstances, I am not convinced so far as merit of the cases is concerned to set aside the selection." 39. In the present case, it has been specifically stated by the respondents in their reply that some of the questions are not only in the Rai Publications but questions can easily be found in various other publishers, some of them being Lakshya Guide Book, Sugam Guide Book and also from the text books of the Board of Secondary Education. To demonstrate as to how many questions in the subject of political science have been figured in the various guide books, a comparative chart has also been placed on record as Annexure-R/1 which shows that in almost every guide book, there is chance of 70-80% questions figuring from any of the guide books. But at the same time, it is stated in the reply that the questions set out are not exactly the same as published in the guide books and nor it is the case of the petitioners that the questions as set out in the question papers are ad verbatim. Therefore, the same is not sufficient to vitiate the selection. 40. But at the same time, it is stated in the reply that the questions set out are not exactly the same as published in the guide books and nor it is the case of the petitioners that the questions as set out in the question papers are ad verbatim. Therefore, the same is not sufficient to vitiate the selection. 40. Learned counsel for the petitioners, of course, relied on the judgment rendered by this High Court in the case of Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & anr. v. State of Rajasthan & ors. (supra) to drive home the point that the Court was well within its' power under Article 226 of the Constitution to go into the questions and correct answers and in the said case, learned Single Bench directed the R.P.S.C. to make fresh evaluation of the answer-sheets of the candidates by specific directions for deleting certain questions. Learned counsel for the petitioners contended that the appeals filed by the State as well as Commission before the Division Bench against the said order and judgment were also dismissed. However, a perusal of Para 10 and 11 of the judgment of the learned Division Bench in the case of State of Rajasthan v. Kamlesh Kumar Sharma & ors. (supra) will show that the respondent - Commission has rather ignored the errors pointed out by the Expert Committee and thereafter, the learned Single Bench on the basis of the pleadings of the parties and submissions made at bar as well as in the light of the law declared by the Hon'ble Apex Court of the land and by High Courts, examined the controversy in a great detail with respect to the allegations of wrong framing of 21 questions, and concluded that four questions should be deleted and answer key in respect of one should be changed. It is important to point out that the said paper was with respect to objective type questions to test the knowledge of law of the candidate. The questions being related to the subject of 'law' could not be ignored by the Court, of which subject, the learned Single Judge himself was an expert but the same may not be possible where the courts are not expert on other subjects and therefore, the report of an expert committee comprising of the members being expert of that particular subject cannot be ignored. Hence, the Court cannot sit as an appeal examining body over the report of the expert committee given by experts of that particular subject and cannot replace their own opinion over and above the opinion of the expert on the subject. In fact, the Division Bench of the Himachal Pradesh High Court in the case Mukesh Thakur v. State of HP & others reported in 2006 (1) Shim. L.C. 134 found inconsistency in framing of the questions relating to the examination in the subject of Civil Law-II and after evaluating, it quashed the result prepared by the commission. However, the matter was carried in appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case titled as H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & anr. reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that it was not permissible for this court to have intervened and examined the question papers and answer sheets itself, even if these questions pertained to the subject of law, more particularly when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. It would be apt to reproduce the following observations : "20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers 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." 41. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is absolutely clear that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should restrain itself from exercising its power to judicially review in the decision taken by the experts in so far it relates to revised key answers in the absence of malafide. 42. The candidates may have had a case wherein no expert committee had been constituted to go into the objections. 42. The candidates may have had a case wherein no expert committee had been constituted to go into the objections. But once, the expert committee has been formed and there is no allegation of bias or malafide, any further interference would only unsettle the settled legal position that the Courts have to show deference to the recommendation of the expert committee consisting of able and distinguished experts in the field. The view expressed by the expert committee requires to be given paramount consideration specially as there is no allegation of bias and malafides or even a whisper of extraneous consideration. 43. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere either in the question paper or the answer keys when the correctness of all the questions has been re-examined by the expert committee. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed. 44. So far as the Writ Petition Nos. 12481/2016, 12270/2016 and 12339/2016 are concerned, they were filed prior to the date of passing of the order in the case of Arvind Kumar & ors (supra) i.e. 08.11.2016 and somehow they are still pending but they too have to be dismissed not only in view of the Order dated 08.11.2016 passed in the case of Arvind Kumar & ors. (supra) but also on account of subsequent fresh development and the order passed by this Court in the above mentioned writ petitions on the same issue, challenging the same selection. 45. The aforesaid three writ petitions too are, accordingly, dismissed. 46. The Writ Petition Nos. 14235/2016 & 14385/2016 have been filed by the successful candidates with the prayer to start the counselling for the post of School Lecturer in pursuance to the advertisement dated 16.10.2016. The same are rendered infructuous in view of the order passed by this Court and are disposed of as infructuous. 47. The list of names of the experts produced before this Court in sealed cover is returned back to the learned counsel for the respondent-Commission duly sealed. Writ petition dismissed as above.