JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Mrs. Sunita Agarwal,J. Heard Sri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Sri Siddharth Khare, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Vikram Bahadur Yadav, learned Standing Counsel for the respondents and Sri Ambarish Chatterji, learned counsel for the petitioner in the connected writ petition. 2. By means of the present writ petition, the petitioners are seeking a writ quashing the Clause 8 of the notification dated 28.6.2017 issued by the U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow; further prayer is to prepare the final result of the written examination held under the Sub-Inspector, Civil Police (Male) and Equivalent Post Direct Recruitment-2016, in December, 2017, by following the principles enunciated by the Apex Court in its judgment and order dated 18.7.2014 passed in Anil Kumar & others vs. State of U.P. and others, Civil Appeal No. 6547 of 2014 with regard to the method of evaluation of wrong questions. 3. The petitioners herein have appeared in the written examination held in the month of December, 2017. As per U.P. Sub-Inspector & Inspector (Civil Police) Service (First Amendment) Rules, 2015 and Second Amendment Rules, 2016, the process of direct recruitment comprises of a written examination; scrutiny of documents and physical standard test and physical efficiency test. The final select list is to be drawn from amongst those candidates who are found successful in physical efficiency test based on the basis of marks obtained by them in the written examination. 4. The written examination comprises of one paper comprising of four sections containing objective type multiple questions having multiple choice answers; (i) General Hindi; (ii) Basic Law/Constitution/General Knowledge; (iii) Numerical and Mental ability test; (iv) Mental Aptitude test/IQ test/Reasoning. 5. Each section carries maximum of 100 marks distributed in 40 questions. Thus each question carries 2.5 marks. For qualifying the said examination, a candidate is required to attain a minimum of 50% of marks in each of the aforesaid four sections/subjects and only such candidates who are successful in the written examination would be permitted to participate in the further process of selection. 6. On 17.6.2016, the U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow, notified Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Platoon Commander, PAC and Firemen Second Officer, Direct Recruitment for Male-2016. 6. On 17.6.2016, the U.P. Police Recruitment & Promotion Board, Lucknow, notified Sub-Inspector, Civil Police, Platoon Commander, PAC and Firemen Second Officer, Direct Recruitment for Male-2016. The notification providing the process of examination in Clauses 4.1 and 4.2 is as under:- **4-1 vkWuykbu fyf[kr ijh{kk ,sls vH;FkhZ ftuds vkosnu lgh ik;s tk;saxs muls 400 vadksa dh vkWuykbu fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh vis{kk dh tk;sxhA bl fyf[kr ijh{kk esa oLrqfu"B izdkj dk] pkj vyx&vyx fuEufyf[kr fo"k;ksa dk ,d iz'ui= gksxk%& dz0 la0 fo"k; vf/kdre vad 1 LkkekU; fgUnh 100 vad 2 ewyfof/k@lafo/kku@lkekU; Kku 100 vad 3 la[;kRed ,oa ekufld ;ksX;rk ijh{kk 100 vad 4 ekufld vfHk:fp ijh{kk@cqf)yfC/k ijh{kk@rkfdZd ijh{kk 100 vad izR;sd fo"k; esa 50 izfr'kr vad izkIr djus esa foQy jgus okys vH;FkhZ HkrhZ ds fy, ik= ugha gksaxsA vH;fFkZ;ksa dh la[;k ds vuqlkj fyf[kr ijh{kk ,d gh frfFk dks ,d ikyh vFkok ,d ls vf/kd ikyh vFkok ,d ls vf/kd frfFk;ksa esa fofHkUu ikfy;ksa esa vk;ksftr djk;h tk;sxhA izR;sd ikfy;ksa ds iz'ui= vyx&vyx gksaxsA vkWuykbu ijh{kk dk ikB~;dze ifjf'k"V&1 ij gSA vkWuykbu ijh{kk ds mijkUr cksMZ }kjk vkefU=r fd;s tkus ij vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkifRr;kW ntZ djkus gsrq fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd tek djuk gksxkA vkifRr lgh ik;s tkus ij mDr /kujkf'k okil dj nh tk;sxhA 4-2 vfHkys[kksa dh laoh{kk ,oa 'kkjhfjd ekud ijh{kk izLrj&4-1 esa of.kZr fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lQy vH;fFkZ;ksa ds izkIrkadksa dh Js"Brk ds vk/kkj ij muds vfHkys[kksa dh laoh{kk ,oa 'kkjhfjd ekud ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus dh vis{kk dh tk;sxhA vfHkys[kksa dh laoh{kk ,oa 'kkjhfjd ekud ijh{kk esa cqyk;s tkus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dh la[;k dqy fjfDr;ksa dh la[;k dks /;ku esa j[krs gq, fu/kkZfjr dh tk;sxhA** 7. From a careful reading of the Clause 4.1' and 4.2' of the notification dated 11.6.2016 indicates that only those candidates who obtained 50% marks in each subject/section would be eligible for the next process of recruitment though the candidates would be called for the said process on the basis of their merit prepared from the amongst the candidates who qualified in the written examination having attained 50% marks in each section. 8. The written examination envisaged by the notification dated 17.6.2016 was held On-line, conducted on several dates in different sessions. Each session had a different set of question paper, for example question Booklet Series 'A' for morning session; question Booklet Series 'B' for evening session of each date of examination. 8. The written examination envisaged by the notification dated 17.6.2016 was held On-line, conducted on several dates in different sessions. Each session had a different set of question paper, for example question Booklet Series 'A' for morning session; question Booklet Series 'B' for evening session of each date of examination. After undertaking On-line examination, the candidates were given an opportunity to raise their objections, in case of any wrong answer or incorrect question set up in the question Booklet of the series concerned. 9. The key-answer was displayed on 2.1.2018 and the candidates were granted opportunity to file their objections after evaluation of their answer sheets. 10. After receipt of the objections, the respondent/Board has proceeded to rectify the key-answers and again published the same on 8.3.2018. The petitioners including other candidates had filed objections to the key-answers published on 8.3.2018. 11. It is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that a notice dated 29.3.2018 was published on the Internet indicating therein the number of questions which were dropped and the questions for which key answers were altered or corrected on the Official Website of the respondent/Board. It is contended that since there were 33 sets of question papers, which were utilised for the examination, the Board has published the notice with regard to each set of question papers comprising of four sections indicating the list of dropped questions/altered correct answers. 12. The Clause 8 of the notice dated 28.6.2017 contains the following stipulation:- **8- fdlh fo"k; esa dksbZ iz'u fujLr gksus dh fLFkfr esa ewY;kadu dh izfdz;k fjV ;kfpdk la[;k&2669@2009 ¼,e0ch0½ iou dqekj vxzgfj cuke mRrj izns'k yksd lsok vk;ksx esa ek0 mPp U;k;ky; }kjk LFkkfir fof/k O;oLFkk ds vuqlkj dh tk;sxhA** 13. The Board has, thus, notified that it will follow the directions issued by this Court in the case of Pawan Kumar Agrahari vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, Writ Petition No. 2669 (MB) of 2009 in case of any wrong question being dropped by it. 14. The submission is that in another recruitment notification dated 3.5.2017, the respondent/Board has notified that they will follow the judgment of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar dated 18.7.2014 with respect to the wrong questions. 15. With reference to the judgment of the Apex Court, page 213' of the paper book, it is contended that the candidates who have attempted a wrong question will only be awarded full marks. 15. With reference to the judgment of the Apex Court, page 213' of the paper book, it is contended that the candidates who have attempted a wrong question will only be awarded full marks. Whereas the candidates who have not answered the said erroneous question, the same shall be proportionately reduced from the total and the said candidate shall only get full marks for the questions answered. 16. Submission is that the select list is to be drawn in the light of the said directions of the Apex Court. Moreover, the respondent/Board cannot adopt two different method for two sets of examination being conducted by it when the criteria for qualifying the said examination is one and the same. 17. Learned Standing Counsel, on the other hand, places before the Court the method for re-determination of marks after cancellation of wrong questions as has been adopted by the respondent/Board in view of the directions of this Court in Pawan Kumar Agrahari as indicated in the written instructions reproduced as under:- vH;FkhZ }kjk gy fd;s lgh iz'uksa dh la[;k X lEcfU/kr fo"k;@Hkkx ds fu/kkZfjr vad ¼iw.kkZad½ lEcfU/kr fo"k;@Hkkx ds dqy lgh iz'uksa dh la[;k 18. A perusal of the said formula indicates that the total number of questions correctly answered by a candidate would be multiplied by the total attainable marks of the subjects/sections concerned divided by total correct answers of the section/subject. 19. The method adopted by the examining body in dealing with the wrong questions in such a selection conducted by the U.P. Police Recruitment and Promotion Board for recruitment to the post of Police Constables was subject matter of consideration before a Division Bench in State of U.P. Thru. Secretary Home and 2 others vs. Pankaj Kumar, Special Appeal Defective No. 343 of 2015 decided on 6.5.2015. The formula adopted by the Board notified on the Official Website of the Board vide notification dated 6th May, 2010 was as under:- "Correct answers multiplied by the total marks of the paper divided by the number of correct questions." 20. The Division Bench has observed that there are two methods of dealing with the anomaly, one is to allot full marks for the incorrectly posed questions to all candidates across the Board or to ignore the wrong questions altogether, so that the rules of the game would stand unchanged during the process of selection. The Division Bench has observed that there are two methods of dealing with the anomaly, one is to allot full marks for the incorrectly posed questions to all candidates across the Board or to ignore the wrong questions altogether, so that the rules of the game would stand unchanged during the process of selection. It was held that the method of dealing with the anomaly i.e. to allot full marks for the incorrectly posed questions to all candidates across the Board would ensure a level playing field but the same is not the only manner in which an anomaly in the examination process can be resolved. It was held that the method which was followed by the examining body was to distribute the marks which were carried by the incorrectly posed questions evenly amongst the remaining questions of the part concerned; the said method has been applied uniformly to all candidates across the Board and cannot be regarded as arbitrary or extraneous. The formula adopted by the expert body i.e. the examining body cannot be interfered while exercising the powers of judicial review inasmuch as, the Court will interfere only in such a case where the authority has applied a standard which is extraneous or one which no reasonable body of person would adopt. 21. It was, thus, held that the standards which has been applied uniformly and was based on an objective foundation need no interference. 22. The principles which have been laid down by the Division Bench in the aforesaid case are fully attracted in the facts of the present case inasmuch as, the formula adopted by the Board in the notification dated 28.6.2017 is same with respect to the similar selection process, as was considered by the Division Bench in the aforesaid special appeal. 23. Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the directions of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar, it was also considered by the Division Bench and it has held that the issue raised therein was not subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court. 24. 23. Insofar as the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the directions of the Apex Court in Anil Kumar, it was also considered by the Division Bench and it has held that the issue raised therein was not subject matter of consideration before the Apex Court. 24. Even otherwise, considering the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners, it is relevant to note that the respondent/Board has applied the principles of Anil Kumar1 with respect to a selection namely the U.P. Police Computer Operator, Grade-A, Direct Recruitment for Backlog Vacancies (Special Selection)-2017 wherein the criteria for qualification of the written examination is different from the selection in question. 25. Clause 4.1 of the notification dated 3rd May, 2017 with reference to the said selection (page 174' of the paper book) is quoted as under:- **4-1 vkWuykbu fyf[kr ijh{kk vkWuykbu fyf[kr ijh{kk oLrqfu"B izdkj dh dqy 200 vad dh gksxhA fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lkekU; Kku] ekufld lkeF;kZ rdZ'kfDr ,oa dEI;wVj foKku ls lEcfU/kr iz'u iwWNs tk;saxsA fyf[kr ijh{kk esa U;wure 40 izfr'kr vad izkIr djuk vko';d gksxkA ;fn fdlh fo"k; esa dksbZ iz'u =qfViw.kZ ik;k tkrk gS] rks flfoy vihy la[;k&6547@2014 vfuy dqekj o vU; cuke LVsV vkWQ ;w0ih0 o vU; esa ek0 mPpre U;k;ky;] ubZ fnYyh ds fu.kZ; fnukad 18-07-2014 ds vuqlkj ml iz'u dks gy djus okys vkSj iz;kl djus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa dks mlds iwjs vad fn;s tk;saxsA vkWuykbu ijh{kk ds mijkUr cksMZ }kjk vkefU=r fd;s tkus ij vH;fFkZ;ksa dks vkifRr;kW ntZ djkus gsrq fu/kkZfjr 'kqYd tek djuk gksxkA vkifRr lgh ik;s tkus ij mDr /kujkf'k okil dj nh tk;sxhA fyf[kr ijh{kk dk ikB~;dze ifjf'k"V&1 ij gSA fyf[kr ijh{kk esa lQy gksus okys vH;fFkZ;ksa esa ls mruh la[;k esa ftruh visf{kr gks vH;fFkZ;ksa dks muds izkIrkadksa dh Js"Brk ds vk/kkj ij dEI;wVj Vad.k ijh{kk esa lfEefyr gksus ds fy, cqyk;k tk;sxk** 26. A careful perusal of the said clause indicates that for qualification in the next phase of selection i.e. "computer typing test", the criteria would be merit i.e. merit list prepared on the basis of the marks attained by the candidates in the written examination from amongst those who have qualified by attaining minimum 40% of marks. 27. There is only one set of paper having total attainable marks as 200' in the written examination. 28. 27. There is only one set of paper having total attainable marks as 200' in the written examination. 28. Thus, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that it was not open for the Board to adopt different criteria for evaluation in two selections conducted by it, is without force. 29. Moreover, one of the approved method of evaluation of question paper, in case of wrong questions found in the same, has been notified by the Board so as to inform all candidates before hand. After the selection process has been set in motion, it is not permissible for the Court to issue a direction asking the Board to change the rules of the game by adopting another method. 30. The submission of learned counsel for the petitioners that the formula as adopted by the Apex Court in Anil Kumar and applied by the respondent/Board in another selection of the year 2017 is to be adopted, is found erroneous. 31. In view of the above discussion, both the writ petitions are dismissed.