JUDGMENT : 1. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this case is being decided at this stage. 2. Briefly the facts of the case are that the Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited ('Corporation' for short) had issued an employment notification on 08.09.2016, calling for the applications from eligible candidates for various posts, including the post of Assistant Engineer (Electrical). Since the petitioners were eligible for the said post, they applied for the same. Subsequently, the written examinations were held between 07.07.2017 and 11.07.2017, at various centres, across the State. On 14.07.2017, the Corporation published the master questions and the answer keys of the online Aptitude Test. The Corporation also gave the candidates an opportunity to view the questions and the answer keys, and if necessary, to challenge any question or the answer that they may think was incorrect. The petitioners raised their objections to some of these questions. However, notwithstanding their challenging the answers given in the answer keys, the Corporation called twenty-four candidates for the purpose of verifying the documents. The petitioners were not even called for verifying their documents. Therefore, the petitioners submitted a representation on 28.08.2017, and another representation on 30.08.2017. However, both the representations did not elicit any reaction from the Corporation. Hence these petitions before this Court. 3. On 16.10.2017, the learned counsel for both the parties were present before this Court. The learned counsel for the Corporation clearly admitted that the representations filed by the petitioners have not been considered. In the representations, the petitioners had clearly pointed out that while some questions were incorrectly framed, the answers to some of the questions as given in the answer keys, were also incorrect. The petitioners had pleaded that, in fact, they had given the correct answers, and the answers being given by the Corporation were incorrect in nature. After hearing both the counsel for the parties, by order dated 16.10.2017, this Court directed the respondents to keep five posts vacant in favour of the petitioners during the pendency of the writ petitions. 4. The respondents have filed an application (I.A.1/17) for modifying the order dated 16.10.2017. 5. Mr. S. S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petitions. Relying on the cases of HIMACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. 4. The respondents have filed an application (I.A.1/17) for modifying the order dated 16.10.2017. 5. Mr. S. S. Naganand, learned Senior Counsel for the respondents, has raised a preliminary objection to the maintainability of the present writ petitions. Relying on the cases of HIMACHAL PRADESH PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION VS. MUKESH THAKUR & ANOTHER (2010) 6 SCC 759 , and RAN VIJAY SINGH & OTHERS VS. STATE OF U. P. 2017 SCC ONLINE SC 1448, the learned Senior Counsel has pleaded that while dealing with academic issues, and dealing with the questions and the correct answers, this Court does not have the jurisdiction to enter the same. Firstly, a grave burden is imposed upon the party which claims that the answers are incorrect; secondly, only if the candidates clearly demonstrate that the answers are incorrect without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation, would this Court be justified in interfering and re-valuating the correct answers. Otherwise, according to the learned Senior Counsel, a presumption has to be drawn by the Court that the answers given in the answer keys by the examiners are the correct one. And the Court is required to proceed on such an assumption. Moreover, even in case of doubt, the benefit goes to the examining authority, and does not go to the candidate. According to the learned Senior Counsel, the petitioners have claimed that the answers to question Nos.23, 34, 38, 72, 83, 87 and 98 are incorrect. While considering their challenges, the Corporation had referred the matter to the Indian Institute of Science, Bengaluru, for their opinion. Except for two questions which were challenged, the Indian Institute of Science has justified the answers which are taken to be correct by the Corporation, as the correct answers. Therefore, according to the learned Senior Counsel, this Court would not be justified in exercising its writ jurisdiction in such a scenario. 6. On the other hand Mr. Nagaprasanna, the learned counsel for the petitioners, claims that some of the questions have been framed incorrectly. Moreover, some of the answers given by the petitioners are backed by the books which were part of the syllabus. Therefore, the petitioners are justified in filing the present writ petitions, and challenging the selection process, especially the answers being given by the Corporation, as correct one. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. Moreover, some of the answers given by the petitioners are backed by the books which were part of the syllabus. Therefore, the petitioners are justified in filing the present writ petitions, and challenging the selection process, especially the answers being given by the Corporation, as correct one. 7. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. 8. In the case of MUKESH THAKUR & ANOTHER (supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court had observed as under: "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 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." 9. Relying on the case of MUKESH THAKUR & ANOTHER (SUPRA), in the case of RAN VIJAY SINGH (SUPRA), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down the law on the issue, whether it would be proper for this Court to examine and re-valuate the answers given by a candidate and the answer keys given by the examiner or not? The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "33. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed as under: "33. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re- evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate." 10. A bare perusal of both the cases clearly reveals that the scope of this Court entering into academic issues dealing with the answers of a questions, is extremely limited one. Until and unless the petitioners are in a position to clearly demonstrate, "without any inferential process of reasoning or by process of rationalisation", that the answer given by the examiner as the correct answers, in fact, is incorrect one, this Court would be justified in not exercising its writ jurisdiction. Moreover, the presumption this Court is required to draw is that the answers given in the answer key by the examiners are, indeed, correct. In case of doubt, the benefit has to go to the answers given by the examiner, and not to the alleged correct answer being given by the candidates. 11. In the present case, the petitioners have not been able to clearly demonstrate that the answers being given by them, are absolutely correct. Therefore, it is not for this Court to go deeply into the correctness or incorrectness of the answers given by the candidates which is contrary to the answers given by the answer keys published by the Corporation. In the present case, the petitioners have not been able to clearly demonstrate that the answers being given by them, are absolutely correct. Therefore, it is not for this Court to go deeply into the correctness or incorrectness of the answers given by the candidates which is contrary to the answers given by the answer keys published by the Corporation. Hence, it would not be proper for this Court to exercise its writ jurisdiction, and to interfere with the selection process already initiated by the Corporation. 12. For the reasons given above, this Court does not find any merit in the present writ petitions. They are, hereby, dismissed. No order as to costs.