ORDER : I.A. No. 3975 of 2018 I.A. No. 3975 of 2018 is on board with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to keep 4 posts vacant for the petitioners till final disposal of the writ petition. Ms. Suchitra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the issue of wrong answer key was also an issue before the Hon’ble Division Bench in L.P.A. No. 518 of 2017. The order passed by the Hon’ble Division Bench is under challenge before the Hon’ble Supreme Court in S.L.P.(C) No. 2316 of 2018 and the Hon’ble Supreme Court has issued notices upon the respondents granting interim relief to the petitioners therein. Learned counsel submits that in view of interim protection granted to the similarly situated persons, four seats may be kept vacant for the petitioners herein subject to final outcome of the S.L.P. pending before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission submits that already the entire process of selection is complete and the successful candidates have been appointed and this writ petition has now become infructuous and as such this interlocutory application may be dismissed. In view of the fact that already selection process is complete, I do not find any merit in this Interlocutory Application, accordingly the same is dismissed. I.A. No. 3975 of 2018 stands dismissed. W.P.(S) No. 655 of 2018 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. Petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for direction upon the respondents for constituting a fresh Committee of persons who were not part of earlier Committee etc. for determining the correct answer key for correct determination of the answer to one question each in paper 2 and 3 as described in Annexure-4 Series, as option for correct answer was not given. Further prayer has been made for a direction to JSSC to allot 1 marks in paper 2 to all the petitioners as the correct answer has been marked by the petitioners whereas demonstrably and patently incorrect option has been given by the respondent in the answer key and to grant 1 mark in paper 3 to all the petitioners as option for correct answer was not given by the respondents. Petitioners have further prayed for declaring them as selected candidates for further selection process or award appropriate marks after revaluation of answer books by members of expert committee. Petitioners have also prayed for keeping four seats vacant in order to adjust them in case order is passed in their favour and till the time, further proceedings with respect to Jharkhand Police Sub-Inspector Limited Competitive Examination, 2017 be stayed. 3. The facts leading to the instant writ petition as could be culled out from the materials on record are that the respondents – Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission published an advertisement being Advertisement No. 09/2017 for holding Jharkhand Police Sub-Inspector Limited Competitive Examination – 2017. Petitioners and others appeared in the said examination conducted on 26.11.2017 for filling up total vacancy of 1544 seats including 401 seats for ST category. It is case of the petitioners that there was apparent mistake on part of the respondents in as much as the question and option for answer were found to be faulty or not appropriate. The petitioners and others had to choose the option amongst the incorrect answer, which is evident from the answer key and amended answer key published by the respondents. In response to the objections invited by the respondents, the petitioners have registered their objections over certain questions but without giving any consideration to the objections raised by the petitioners, the results have been published on 08.01.2018. It is specific case of the petitioners that in the written test several questions were erroneously framed by the respondents having wrong answers in multiple choice answer and some of them were out of syllabus, thereby seriously impairing the petitioners’ chance to score the cut-off marks for selection. Petitioners have been disqualified for few marks only and had there been no mistake in answer sheet of the respondents or had the answer sheets of the petitioner were evaluated correctly, they would have been declared successful. 4. Ms. Suchitra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the written test, several questions were erroneously framed by the respondents having wrong answers in multiple choice answer. For the wrong committed by the respondents, petitioners cannot be made to suffer and as such, suitable marks may be allotted to the petitioners. 4. Ms. Suchitra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that in the written test, several questions were erroneously framed by the respondents having wrong answers in multiple choice answer. For the wrong committed by the respondents, petitioners cannot be made to suffer and as such, suitable marks may be allotted to the petitioners. Learned counsel further urges that as the wrong answer had been given in multiple choice answer and as such, equal marks thereof should be awarded to all the candidates for the same. Learned counsel further argues that no additional marks has been granted even for the questions having erroneous answers in spite of the fact that the respondents are duty bound to grant additional marks for those questions. To buttress her arguments, learned counsel has placed reliance on the following judgments: (i) Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 ; (ii) P.K. Velson and others Vs. Union of India and others reported in (2005) 11 SCC 192 . (iii) Manish Ujwal and others Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and others reported in (2005) 13 SCC 744 . Learned counsel further argues that petitioner is not pressing for re-evaluation of the answer sheets. She however submits that suffice it would be if grace marks is awarded for the questions having erroneous answers. In order to strengthen his arguments, learned counsel draws attention of the Court towards para-30.2 of the Judgment reported in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (Supra), which is reproduced hereinbelow: “30.2. 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 rationalization” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed.” 5. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission submits that after conducting the examination, the model answer had been published inviting objections/ suggestions from the aggrieved candidates. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents – Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission submits that after conducting the examination, the model answer had been published inviting objections/ suggestions from the aggrieved candidates. The objections were also placed before the experts committee for verification and correction and on the basis of the advice and corrections made by the expert committee, the final revised model answers were published and on the basis of final revised model answers, the answer sheets of the candidates were evaluated and thereafter the candidates who have secured the minimum qualifying marks in terms of the advertisement, were allowed to appear in the physical test and medical fitness test and as such, there is no illegality or infirmity in publication of the results and making recommendation for appointment of the successful candidates. Learned counsel further submits that the opinion/ suggestions of the expert committee is binding on the JSSC and the JSSC does the evaluation work of the answer sheets on the basis of the opinion of the subject experts. Learned counsel further submits that the JSSC has already made recommendations for appointment of successful candidates and petitioner has not made those successful candidates as party-respondents in the instant writ petition and as such, this writ application is not maintainable and fit to be dismissed on the ground of non-joinder of necessary parties. Now entire examination and selection process is over and results have been published and successful candidates have joined the post. The third party right has accrued. Nothing remains to be decided in the instant writ petition. The Commission has taken due care that career of candidates may not be jeopardised. Every care and caution is taken by the respondents in question setting and declaration of results. Learned counsel submits that in the circumstances, this writ petition may be dismissed. Learned counsel has placed reliance in the Judgment passed in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Another reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 and in the case of Smt. Prabha Ranjan Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand & others reported in (2014) 3 JCR 291 Jhr.. Learned counsel has further relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Ranjan Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 JCR 291 Jhr. 6. State of Jharkhand & others reported in (2014) 3 JCR 291 Jhr.. Learned counsel has further relied upon the decision in the case of Smt. Prabha Ranjan Gupta Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. reported in (2014) 3 JCR 291 Jhr. 6. Be that as it may, having gone through rival submission of counsel for the parties, this Court is of the considered view that since already examination is over and results have been published, candidates have already joined their respective posts, no interference is warranted in this case. The prayer of the petitioners cannot be entertained on the following grounds:- (i) The examination is over and the results have already been published; (ii) Petitioners have approached this Court after duly participating in the process of examination and only after being declared unsuccessful; (iii) Even if vacancies are still there, no right has accrued to the petitioners for their appointment as filling-up of the left over vacancies totally lies within domain of the employer. The Hon’ble Apex in case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr. (supra) has 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. 24. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543 , wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543 , wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under. ..........It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act... .......The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act........." In the recent judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court reported in case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. (supra), the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse – exclude the suspect or offending question.” The Division Bench of this Hon’ble Court in case of Rakesh Kumar Vs. State of Jharkhand & Ors. [2018 (1) JBCJ 641 (HC)], relying on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in the case M.C Gupta (Dr.) V. Arun Kumar Gupta (Dr.), reported in (1979) 2 SCC 339 , has also reiterated the same. Relevant para of the judgment passed in case of M.C Gupta (Dr.) V. Arun Kumar Gupta (Dr.), which is reproduced herein below:- “When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fides against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be.” 7. Ms. Suchitra Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners places heavy reliance on the judgment reported in case of P.K. Velson & Ors. Vs. Union of India & ors. (supra) for consideration of the case of the petitioners. However, the said judgment is not at all applicable in the instant case, as in case of P.K. Velson in respect of similar screening test earlier other candidates had also been given grace marks and the Court had held that in peculiar facts of the case, appellants were entitled to be treated similarly but in the case in hand none of the candidates have been given the grace marks and there is no question of any discrimination or similarity. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had interfered in peculiar facts and circumstances but here no case is made-out for interference and the case is distinguished. The Hon’ble Supreme Court had interfered in peculiar facts and circumstances but here no case is made-out for interference and the case is distinguished. The petitioners are not entitled to get grace marks as the other candidates, who have appeared in the examination, passed the same and as such, petitioners were not entitled to get any grace marks. The facts of the present case is entirely different to that of P.K. Velson’s case. The other cases relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioners is also not applicable in the instant case. 8. Similar issue fell for consideration before this Hon’ble Court in W.P.(C). No. 4184 of 2005 (Bimlesh Kumar Vs. Jharkhand Public Service Commission & Anr.) and this Hon’ble Court, while dismissing the said writ application, has held that petitioner had appeared in the examination without any objection and subsequently, writ application has been filed after results have been declared and appointments have been made and as such, I find no merit in this writ application, which is, accordingly, dismissed. 9. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. has clearly held that, in the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. Even if some questions were out of syllabus, the candidates cannot take benefits out of it for allotment of grace marks. 10. As a cumulative effect of the aforesaid observations, rules, guidelines, legal propositions and in view of the fact that already entire examination and selection process is over, I do not find any merit in this writ petitions. Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. However, the respondents are directed to take due care and caution in setting up questions and declaration of results so that any candidate may not face such situation. This Court is bound to note down that the recruiting bodies should not commit any mistake so that career of prospective and potential candidates is jeopardized and in turn State would not be able to find out candidates with best brain. 11. Resultantly, the writ petition stands dismissed.