JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Kumar, J. Pursuant to the requisition made by the respondent No.26 (General Administration Department) for filling up 277 vacancies, that is, 269 in Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Service, 02 in J&K Police (Gazetted) Service and 06 in J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service, the appellant vide its notification No.PSC/EXM/2016/52 dated 18.06.2016 invited online applications from the permanent residents of the Jammu and Kashmir State for admission to the J&K Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016. The examination for the purposes of making selection to the notified posts was provided to be conducted in accordance with the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 (SRO 387 of 2008) read with SRO 190 of 2016 dated 190 of 2016 dated 17.06.2016 and J&K Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005. The examination was envisaged to be conducted in two parts:- Part-I : Preliminary Examination Part-II : Main examination and interview The appellant received 47122 application forms in response to the aforesaid notification, out of which 36681 candidates appeared in the Preliminary Examination which was held on 19.03.2017. In as many as 6925 candidates which include respondent Nos. 1 to 25 were shortlisted in the preliminary examination for admission to the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive (Main) Examination, 2016. The last candidate shortlisted for admission to the main examination scored 270.477 marks out of the aggregate of 450 marks. Respondent Nos. 1 to 25, obviously, scored marks more than 270.477. It may be noted that the result of the preliminary examination was declared by the appellant on 23.04.2017 vide notification No.PSC/Exam/ 2017/22. Consequently, online applications from the candidates who had been shortlisted in the preliminary examination for admission to the main examination were invited by the appellant vide notification No.PSC/Exam/2017/26 dated 09.05.2017. The last date for submission of online applications and for submission of fee/bank challan was initially fixed as 10.06.2017 and 18.06.2017 respectively which was later extended to 28.06.2017 and 30.06.2017 respectively by issuing another notification on 06.06.2017. The appellant, instead of conducting the main examination, came up with a notice issued vide No.PSC/Exam/KAS/10/2017 dated 14.06.2017 whereby result of the preliminary examination declared on 23.04.2017 was kept in abeyance. Simultaneously, subsequent notification issued on 09.05.2017 for inviting online applications for admission to the main examination was also withdrawn. The appellant, instead of conducting the main examination, came up with a notice issued vide No.PSC/Exam/KAS/10/2017 dated 14.06.2017 whereby result of the preliminary examination declared on 23.04.2017 was kept in abeyance. Simultaneously, subsequent notification issued on 09.05.2017 for inviting online applications for admission to the main examination was also withdrawn. The aforesaid course of action was claimed to be adopted by the appellant pursuant to a decision taken in the 4th extra ordinary meeting of the J&K Public Service Commission held on 12.06.2017 in which the Commission taking note of various representations, deputations and applications under the Jammu and Kashmir Right to Information Act, 2009 from different KAS aspirants with regard to the discrepancies in question papers/answer keys of the preliminary examination, decided to refer the question papers and answer keys thereto to an independent/third party subject experts for re-looking/revisiting them in order to find out discrepancies, if any. 2. The appellant claims to have approached the Vice Chancellors and heads of the reputed Universities and Institutes within and outside the State for re-looking/revisiting the Model (Key) Answers by subject matter experts in order to find out discrepancies in the question papers and Model (Key) Answers. After undertaking the process for re-verification of 23 answer keys through the aforesaid experts of some reputed Universities and Institutes, the appellant also claims to have sought third party report to the extent of difference of opinion amongst the reports of the Universities. The appellant claims that after the process of re-verification of the Model (Key) Answers and making necessary corrections, revised answer keys were generated. This revision of the answer keys necessitated re-evaluation of the answer scripts of all the candidates. Accordingly, the appellant vide his notification No.PSC/Exam/2017/44 dated 09.08.2017 declared the revised result of Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination, 2016, as a consequence whereof, the applications of 429 candidates, which include respondent Nos. 1 to 25 who had been shortlisted in the earlier result notification but could not make it in the revised result notification issued on 09.08.2017, got rejected being ineligible to participate in the main examination. It may be pointed out that in the revised result declared by the appellant, the cut-off merit, that is, the merit obtained by the candidate last shortlisted for main examination rose to 277.275 marks, whereas in the earlier result notification the cut-off was 270.477 marks. The writ petitioners, that is, respondent Nos. It may be pointed out that in the revised result declared by the appellant, the cut-off merit, that is, the merit obtained by the candidate last shortlisted for main examination rose to 277.275 marks, whereas in the earlier result notification the cut-off was 270.477 marks. The writ petitioners, that is, respondent Nos. 1 to 25 herein who were among the 429 candidates and could not make it to the main examination due to revision of result of the preliminary examination approached this Court in OWP No.1207/2017. The Writ Court while issuing notice in the aforesaid writ petition also stayed the operation of the impugned notification dated 09.08.2018. The writ petition was contested by the appellant by filing objections and the same was disposed of vide order dated 24.08.2017 and the appellant was directed to treat the writ petition of the respondent Nos. 1 to 25 as representation and consider the same in accordance with law within a period of four weeks. It was also provided that the result of consideration shall also be communicated to respondent Nos. 1 to 25 herein. 3. It appears that without considering the grievance of respondent Nos. 1 to 25, as projected in OWP No.1207/2017, in terms of order of the Writ Court dated 24.08.2017, the appellant came up with a notification being Notification No.PSC/Exam/2017/49 dated 25.08.2017 calling upon the candidates qualified as per revised result notification to fill up their forms for the main examination. In the said notification it was also provided that the candidature of 429 candidates (including respondent Nos. 1 to 25) who had been declared ineligible for participation in the main examination in view of the revised result of the preliminary examination shall be deemed to have been rejected. It is this notification which respondent Nos. 1 to 25 assailed before the Writ Court in OWP No.1332/2017. The writ petition was contested by the appellant by filing objections wherein the appellant sought to justify the revision of result of the preliminary examination, which the appellant claimed, was necessitated due to errors and discrepancies in the question papers as well as the Model Answer Keys. It was claimed that the whole exercise was undertaken bona fide and to maintain utmost fairness and transparency in the process of examination. It was claimed that the whole exercise was undertaken bona fide and to maintain utmost fairness and transparency in the process of examination. Be that as it may, the plea taken by the appellant to justify the revision of result of the preliminary examination did not find favour with the Writ Court and vide judgment impugned dated 30.12.2017 the writ petition was disposed by providing that both set of candidates, figuring in the first list issued by the appellant on 23.04.2017 and those figuring in the revised list issued on 09.08.2017, shall be entitled and allowed to sit and participate in the main examination. The appellant is aggrieved of the judgment of the Writ Court and is, therefore, before us in this appeal filed under Clause 12 of the Letters Patent. 4. Mr. Azhar-ul-Amin, learned counsel for the appellant assails the judgment impugned primarily on the following grounds:- (i) The Writ Court committed an error by not appreciating that a candidate by merely participating in the preliminary examination and appearing in the result notification thereof does not acquire indefeasible right to participate in the main examination and that the examining body does not lose its right to rectify the result necessitated due to the patent errors and discrepancies in the Model Answer Keys. The learned counsel premised his argument on the plea that invitation to candidates to participate at different stages of examination is always provisional and the preliminary examination in the instant case was meant only for shortlisting of the candidates to be admitted in the main examination. (ii) The Writ Court also failed to appreciate that permitting the writ petitioners to participate in the main examination on the basis of the first result of the preliminary examination would be tantamount to conferring undeserved advantage on them over others who had given correct answers but were not correctly evaluated due to an erroneous key. It is submitted that once it is demonstrated that the appellant had an inherent right to correct the errors and discrepancies in Model (Key) Answers, no candidate could have been allowed to take the benefit of such errors and discrepancies in the Model (Key) Answers. It is submitted that once it is demonstrated that the appellant had an inherent right to correct the errors and discrepancies in Model (Key) Answers, no candidate could have been allowed to take the benefit of such errors and discrepancies in the Model (Key) Answers. (iii) The direction issued by the Writ Court to permit both set of candidates to appear in the main examination is contrary to the statute which provides for shortlisting the number of candidates which is either 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who appear in the preliminary examination or 25 times the total number of vacancies to be filled up, whichever is less. (iv) The impugned judgment has resulted in infraction of principle of equality enshrined under Article 14 of the Constitution of India. It is submitted that the last candidate in 429 candidates who got ousted by revision of the result had obtained 260.892 marks on revision of the result and therefore, 2356 candidates having secured more than 260.892 marks intervene. It is, thus, urged that if the appellant permits 429 candidates aforesaid to participate in the main examination in terms of the direction of the Writ Court, it would be totally unjust and unfair on the part of the appellant to deny participation to 2356 candidates who intervene between the last candidate among the 429 candidates, now ousted because of the cut-off marks having risen to 277.275. This, contends learned counsel for the appellant, would bring inequality and unfairness, viz-a-viz aforesaid candidates and if all the candidates, i.e., 2356 who intervene as aforesaid and 429 candidates who got ousted due to revision of the result are allowed to participate in the main examination, it would increase the ratio prescribed by the Statute for shortlisting of candidates in the main examination. (v) The principle of estoppel has been wrongly applied by the learned Writ Court. The shortlisting done by the appellant on the basis of demonstrably wrong keys had the effect of perpetrating the interests of many deserving candidates and giving benefit to un-deserving ones. The power to correct the answer keys is inherent in every examining body who is entrusted the job of making selection in fair and transparent manner and to chose the best amongst the participating candidates. The power to correct the answer keys is inherent in every examining body who is entrusted the job of making selection in fair and transparent manner and to chose the best amongst the participating candidates. (vi) The Writ Court also erred in holding that in the absence of any specific power of re-evaluation available in the statute, the appellant could not have suo motto corrected the Model (Key) Answers and re-evaluated the result of the preliminary examination. It is submitted that the power of examining body to re-evaluate the answer scripts, if the situation so warrants, is inherent in its duty to conduct fair and transparent examination and such power need not be conferred by the statute. (v) The Writ Court also erred in holding that the appellant had changed the Rules of procedure after commencement of the selection process. It is submitted that revision of result of the preliminary examination was as a result of rectification of the Model (Key) Answers and therefore, cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as changing the rules of procedure. It is also submitted that Rule 8 of the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 does not provide for any qualifying marks/cut-off for the purpose of shortlisting but only provides that candidates would be shortlisted in a manner that it represents 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who appear in the preliminary examination or 25 times the total number of vacancies to be filled up whichever is lower. In the instant case, it is submitted that the candidates 25 times the total number of vacancies notified were shortlisted and the merit of the last candidate so shortlisted for main examination represented the cut-off for the purposes of admitting the candidates to the main examination. That being so, it is contended, there was no question of changing any rules of the game after the process of selection had been set in motion. The findings of the learned Writ Court are, therefore, erroneous. (vi) The observation of the learned Writ Court that process of re-evaluation was shrouded in mystery, therefore, attended with unfairness and mala fide is also erroneous both on facts and law. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 25 had not made any allegation of mala fide against anybody in the writ petition nor had demonstrably pleaded any malice in law. It is submitted that respondent Nos. 1 to 25 had not made any allegation of mala fide against anybody in the writ petition nor had demonstrably pleaded any malice in law. It is submitted that once it is settled position of law that examining body is well within its rights to suo motto correct the question papers as well as answer keys even if such power is not specifically conferred by the statute, the exercise undertaken by the appellant for well explained reasons cannot be held to be actuated by malice in law. 5. On the other hand, Mr. Z.A.Shah, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 25 while supporting the impugned judgment contends that the manner in which the appellant conducted itself post declaration of the result of preliminary examination, does support the observations of the Writ Court that the exercise undertaken by the appellant for revising the result of the preliminary examination was shrouded in mystery and was thus, obviously actuated by ulterior consideration. He supports the judgment of the learned Single Judge primarily on the following grounds:- (a) That in the absence of any power conferred upon the appellant by the Statute or Rules, the appellant could not have undertaken the process of re-evaluation. Correction of Model (Key) Answers and then revising the result of the preliminary examination is nothing but a process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts and the same could not have been undertaken without their being any power or authority conferred upon the appellant. (b) The statutory Rules governing the conduct of examination do not provide for disclosure of the answer keys and therefore, it is not understandable as to how the candidates who are alleged to have made representation came to know about the alleged errors and discrepancies in the answer keys. (c) In view of the difference of opinion among experts of different universities and institutes to whom the Model (Key) Answers were referred for verification, and then the reference of this difference of opinion to the third party experts would clearly demonstrate that the answers given in the Model (Key) Answers were not demonstrably incorrect and therefore, with a view to maintain certainty in the process of selection, the Commission could not have undertaken the exercise of re-verification and revision of the Model (Key) Answers. In these circumstances, submits learned counsel, the directions issued by the Writ Court were legally justified and highly equitable. (d) Alternatively, it is submitted by the learned senior counsel, that even if the stand of the appellant is taken to be correct on the face of it, respondent Nos. 1 to 25 and similarly situated other candidates who were ousted in the revised result cannot be said to be privy to such errors and discrepancies that had allegedly erupted into the Model (Key) Answers prepared by the experts at the instance of the appellant. By declaring them qualified, a legitimate expectation was generated in the minds of respondent Nos. 1 to 25 and others with regard to participation in the second part of the examination i.e. main and the viva voce. The Writ Court, therefore, correctly permitted them to participate in the main examination and the relief granted by the Writ Court cannot be said to be unjustified or inequitable. 6. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 7. Before we proceed to appreciate the rival contentions, as noted herein above, it would be apposite to take note of the statutory provisions governing the conduct of the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination as also the development of examination jurisprudence by exposition of law by the Supreme Court from time to time. 8. The conduct of Combined Competitive Examination by the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission for direct recruitment to (i) Junior Scale of J&K Administrative Service, (ii) J&K Police (Gazetted) Service and (iii) J&K Accounts (Gazetted) Service is governed by the Jammu and Kashmir Combined Competitive Examination Rules, 2008 issued vide SRO 387 dated 01.12.2008 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2008"). These Rules have been made by the Governor in exercise of powers conferred by proviso to Section 124 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir and are therefore, statutory in nature. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2008 provides that the combined competitive examination shall be conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission in accordance with the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005. For facility of reference Rule 4 of the Rules of 2008 is reproduced hereunder:- "4. Rule 4 of the Rules of 2008 provides that the combined competitive examination shall be conducted by the J&K Public Service Commission in accordance with the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005. For facility of reference Rule 4 of the Rules of 2008 is reproduced hereunder:- "4. Conduct of Examination:- The examination shall be conducted by the Commission in accordance with the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005." Rule-8 of the Rules of 2008 provides that the examination shall consist of two stages, that is, (a) Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination (Objective Type) for shortlisting the candidates for main examination, and (b) Combined Competitive (Main) Examination (written and interview) for the selection of candidates for various services and posts. The Rule further provides that the preliminary examination is only meant to be a screening test and the marks obtained in such examination shall only count for shortlisting of the candidates to the main examination. It is further provided that subject to minimum qualifying marks, as may be fixed by the Commission at its discretion, the number of candidates to be admitted to the main examination shall be, as far as practicable, 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who appeared in the preliminary examination or twenty five times the total number of posts notified whichever is lower. The extract of Rule as is relevant to the instant controversy is reproduced hereunder:- "8. Examination- (1) The examination shall consist of two successive stages:- (a) Combined Competitive (Preliminary) Examination (Objective Type) for the selection of candidates for the main examination; and (b) Combined Competitive (Main) Examination (written and interview) for the selection of candidates for the various services and posts. (2) The preliminary examination will consist of two papers of objective type (multiple choice questions) and carry 450 marks in the subjects set out in Appendix-I. This examination is meant to serve as a screening test only. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination shall count only for short-listing of the candidates for the Main Examination. (2) The preliminary examination will consist of two papers of objective type (multiple choice questions) and carry 450 marks in the subjects set out in Appendix-I. This examination is meant to serve as a screening test only. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination shall count only for short-listing of the candidates for the Main Examination. Subject to the minimum qualifying marks as may be fixed by the Commission at its discretion, the number of candidates to be admitted to the Main Examination shall be, as far as practicable, 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who appeared in the preliminary examination or twenty five times the total number of vacancies to be filled in the various services and posts, whichever be lower". 9. Since Rule 4 of the Rules of 2008 entrusts the job of holding the Combined Competitive Examinations to the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission in accordance with the provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005, it would be necessary to briefly take note of the relevant provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005 (hereinafter referred to as "the Rules of 2005") as well. Rule 12-A of the Rules of 2005 which has been relied upon by the both sides to buttress their respective submissions may be reproduced hereunder:- "12 A: Detection of wrong Question/Answers/Keys procedure for Rectification and Evaluation. (a) During the course of examination, if it is revealed on scrutiny or in consequences of an representation made by the examinees that:- i. the question paper has printing errors, misprint or that the material printed is not legible; ii. the questions have been repeated; and iii. the questions/answers/part thereof have escaped printing and the serial numbers have in consequence been disturbed. the questions have been repeated; and iii. the questions/answers/part thereof have escaped printing and the serial numbers have in consequence been disturbed. The matter shall immediately be reported to the Controller of Examinations who on verification of the report shall authorize the rectification of the error through an on spot announcement in all the examination centres for which a certificate of rectification shall be recorded by the Supervisor concerned and forwarded to the Controller of Examinations for record; b) If the scrutiny of the question paper by the Invigilation staff, officials/officers of the Examination wing of the Commission or on a representation received from the candidates within three days commencing from the day following the day of conduct of examination in that paper, it is prima-facie found that: i. the formulation/text of the question is admissible to different interpretations because of vagueness; ii. the questions recorded in the paper is incomplete; iii. the questions is out of syllabus notified for the purpose; iv. that all the options recorded vis-a-vis a question are wrong; v. that more than one options recorded are correct; and The Controller of Examinations shall in that eventuality refer all these representations to a team of experts constituted with the approval of the Chairman for the purpose. The team shall comprise not less than two experts of eminence in the subject and their findings shall be final. (c) In case the team of the experts confirm the incorrectness of the questions/answers/options, the concerned questions shall be deleted from the paper and the marks allocated therefore shall be redistributed equally amongst the rest of the questions on prorata basis to ensure that the marks allocated for the question paper as a whole remain unchanged. Provided that, where the number of question so to be deleted exceeds 10% of the total number of questions in that paper, the examination shall be cancelled and fresh examination in that paper shall be held." 10. From the perusal of Rule reproduced hereinabove, it is manifest that the Rule provides for mechanism for correction of wrong questions, though the recitals of the Rule indicate that the provision is for detection of wrong question/Answers/Keys, procedure for Rectification and Evaluation. From the perusal of Rule reproduced hereinabove, it is manifest that the Rule provides for mechanism for correction of wrong questions, though the recitals of the Rule indicate that the provision is for detection of wrong question/Answers/Keys, procedure for Rectification and Evaluation. The first part of the Rule deals with a situation where during the course of examination it is revealed on scrutiny or in consequence of a representation made by the examinees that the question paper has printing error or that the questions has/have been repeated or part thereof have escaped printing and the serial numbers have been disturbed as a consequence thereof, the Controller of Examination on being reported the matter shall verify the same and authorize the rectification of the error wherever it is required. This would be done through an on spot announcement to be made in all the examination centres. The second part of the Rule, however, deals with a situation where the examinees within three days commencing from the day following the day of conduct of examination make representations or the invigilation staff, officers/officials of examination wing of the Commission on scrutiny prima facie find that there are errors in the question paper, the Controller of Examination being reported shall refer all these representations to a team of experts constituted with the approval of the Chairman for the purpose and if the team of experts confirm the incorrectness of the questions/answers/options/keys, the concerned question shall be deleted from the paper and the marks allocated therefor shall be redistributed equally amongst the rest of the questions on pro rata basis so as to ensure that the marks allocated for the question paper as a whole remain unchanged. There is, however, a proviso appended to the aforesaid Rule which provides that where number of questions to be deleted in terms of Clause (c) of Rule 12-A exceeds 10% of the total number of questions in that paper, the examination shall be cancelled and fresh examination in that paper shall be held. 11. There is, however, no much dispute with regard to the manner in which the provisions of Rule 12-A of the Rules of 2005 were carried out by the appellant. It is not the case of the writ petitioners, now respondent Nos. 1 to 25 herein, that the provisions of Rule 12-A were in any manner infracted by the appellant. The grievance of respondent Nos. It is not the case of the writ petitioners, now respondent Nos. 1 to 25 herein, that the provisions of Rule 12-A were in any manner infracted by the appellant. The grievance of respondent Nos. 1 to 25 (private respondents) is, however, that in view of deletion of Rule 12-B of the Rules of 2005 which admittedly was deleted prior to the initiation of the process of Combined Competitive Examination, 2016 which was set in motion vide notification dated 18.06.2016, nobody, be it the candidates participating in the examination or the officials of the appellant, was entitled to have access to the Model (Key) Answers prepared by the appellant with the help of experts. Before proceedings further, it would be apposite to reproduce Rule-12-B (now deleted) as well:- 12 B. (i) The Controller of Examinations will release the key of question paper preferably immediately after the conclusion of the Examination/Test or on the working day following the day of the test. The keys will be uploaded on the website of the Commission. (ii) The candidates can represent to the Controller of Examinations if they feel that the official key to any of the questions is/are wrong within three days from the day of notification of key. (iii) The Controller of Examinations after scrutiny of all such representations shall refer them to a Committee of two Experts in the relevant subject. This Committee shall be formed with the approval of the Chairman. In case of General Studies Paper the questions will be referred to the subject experts of the field relevant to the question (e.g. a question in History will be referred to an expert in the History). The opinion of the expert committee shall be final. The Controller of Examinations shall accordingly finalize the keys of relevant questions and notify the same for evaluation as well as the information of the examinees. 12. As is evident from a bare perusal of Rule 12-B, the Controller of Examination was under an obligation to release the keys of question paper immediately after the conclusion of the examination by uploading the same on the website of the Commission. The candidates were permitted to represent the Controller of Examination, if they feel that the official key to any questions is/are wrong within three days from the date of notification of the keys. The candidates were permitted to represent the Controller of Examination, if they feel that the official key to any questions is/are wrong within three days from the date of notification of the keys. The Controller of Examination after scrutiny of all such representations was obliged to refer them to the committee of two experts in the relevant subject. The opinion of the expert committee was to be treated as final and it was on the basis of this final opinion, the key to the question was to be finalized and notified for evaluation. As rightly contended by the learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 25 that had the provision, i.e., 12-B been retained in the statute book, the controversy that erupted in the instant examination would not have happened. He, however, submits that with the deletion of aforesaid provision, the power of the Commission to re-evaluate the answer scripts whether of preliminary or of final examination has been specifically taken away. Rules 31 to 33 of the Rules of 2005 also lead us to agree with the submission of the learned senior counsel for the respondents that there is no specific provision made in the Rules authorizing the Commission to revisit the answer keys and re-evaluate the result of the preliminary examination or even the main examination. It is in the backdrop of this Rule position, learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 25 urges that the process undertaken by the appellant was without any authority of law. The Mode (Key) Answers prepared by the experts appointed by none other than the appellant and moderated by 3rd expert should not have been tempered with. 13. As noticed above, in terms of Rule-4 of the Rules of 2008, the task of conducting the Combined Competitive Examination is entrusted to the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission, a constitutional body constituted under Section 128 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. Section 133 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir delineates the functions of the Commission and therefore, for the present controversy, it would be profitable to take note of the provisions of Section 133 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir as well, which for facility of reference are reproduced hereunder:- "133. Functions of the Commission.- (1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State. Functions of the Commission.- (1) It shall be the duty of the Commission to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State. (2) The Commission shall be consulted-- (a) on all matters relating to methods of recruitment to civil services and for civil posts; (b) on the principles to be followed in making appointments to civil services and posts and in making promotions and, transfers from one service to another and on the suitability of candidates for such appointments, promotions or transfers; (c) on all-disciplinary matters affecting a person serving under the Government including memorials or petitions relating to such matters, and it shall be the duty of the Commission to advise on any matter so referred to them or on any other matter which the Governor may refer to them: Provided that the *Governor may make regulations specifying the matters in which either generally, or in any particular class of cases or in any particular circumstances, it shall not be necessary for the Commission to be consulted. (3) Nothing in sub-section (2) shall require the Commission to be consulted as respects the manner in which a provision may be made by the State for the reservation of appointments or posts in favour of any class of permanent residents which in the opinion of the Government is not adequately represented in the, services under the State. (4) All regulations made under the proviso to sub-section (2) by the Governor shall be laid for not less than fourteen days before each House of the Legislature as soon as possible after they are made, and shall be subject to such modifications, whether by way of repeal or amendment as the Legislative Assembly may make during the session in which they are so laid." 14. As is evident from Section 133, the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission has been entrusted the duty by the constitution makers to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State. The duty to conduct examinations conferred upon the Commission is very wide in amplitude and would encompass taking all measures, adopting all procedures, as may be required for smooth, transparent and fair conduct of examinations. The duty to conduct examinations conferred upon the Commission is very wide in amplitude and would encompass taking all measures, adopting all procedures, as may be required for smooth, transparent and fair conduct of examinations. The duty to conduct examinations conferred upon the Public Service Commission cannot be circumscribed by any authority and all actions of the Public Service Commission aimed at achieving the object of holding a free, fair and transparent examinations would fall within the ambit of duty conferred upon it for conduct of examinations for appointment to the services of the State as delineated in sub section (1) of Section 133 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. It is with a view to regulating the performance of aforesaid duty, the appellant promulgated the Jammu and Kashmir Public Service Commission (Conduct of Examination) Rules, 2005. The Rules aforesaid, however, cannot be held to be exhaustive on the subject but only make provision for regulating the conduct of various examinations for appointments to the services of the State so as to facilitate the performance of duty as is conferred upon it by the Constitution of the State. 15. After taking note of the relevant provisions of various statutes which were debated by the learned counsel for the parties, it is now time to briefly survey the law pertaining to examinations. The genre of examination jurisprudence is relatively recent phenomenon and what we are here concerned with is the issue relating to combined competitive examination as opposed to academic examination. 16. The issues, like power of the examining body to correct the question papers, answer keys and re-evaluate the answer scripts and the right of the candidate/examinee to ask for such correction or re-evaluation from the examining body or through judicial intervention have been subject matter of debate in number of cases that have come up before various High Courts and some even landed before the Supreme Court. The issues though, more or less, settled, continue to pour in different Courts even now, not because there is uncertainty in the matter of declaration of law on the subject but because of the tendency of the candidates, who fail to qualify in such competitive examinations, to knock the door of the Court to vent out their frustration. 17. The issues though, more or less, settled, continue to pour in different Courts even now, not because there is uncertainty in the matter of declaration of law on the subject but because of the tendency of the candidates, who fail to qualify in such competitive examinations, to knock the door of the Court to vent out their frustration. 17. The first and the leading case in the field of examination jurisprudence was Kanpur University and others v. Samir Gupta and others; AIR 1983 SC 1230 . In the aforesaid case a three-Judge Bench posed a question in paragraph No.1 of the judgment in the following manner:- "If a paper-setter commits an error while indicating the correct answer to a question set by him, can the students who answer that question correctly be failed for the reason that though their answer is correct, it does not accord with the answer supplied by the paper-setter to the University as the correct answer?" The answer which the paper-setter supplies to the University as the correct answer is called the 'key answer'. No one can accuse the teacher of not knowing the correct answer to the question set by him. But it seems that, occasionally, not enough care is taken by the teachers to set questions which are free from ambiguity and to supply key answers which are correct beyond reasonable controversy. The keys supplied by the paper-setters in these cases raised more question than they solved." 18. The Supreme Court in paragraph Nos. 3 and 4, however, held thus:- "3. So far so good, the snag lies in determining which out of the four suggested answers is the correct answer. That duty is naturally assigned to the paper-setter, who is required to supply to the University the correct answer to each question, called the 'key answer'. The difficulty involved in evaluating a very large number of answer-books is solved by the State Government, quite successfully, by computerising the result. The key answers are fed into a computer and the marking computerised. 4. The difficulty which arose in these cases is not due to the failure of the computer, which is quite encouraging. The habit of man is to blame the machine. The difficulty arose because the key answers furnished by the paper-setters turned out to be wrong. The students got to know the key answers out of the generosity of the University. The difficulty which arose in these cases is not due to the failure of the computer, which is quite encouraging. The habit of man is to blame the machine. The difficulty arose because the key answers furnished by the paper-setters turned out to be wrong. The students got to know the key answers out of the generosity of the University. If wanted, rightly, to be frank and fair. Therefore, it published the key answers along with the result of the test. Respondents, whose names did not figure in the list of successful candidates, filed writ petitions in the High Court of Allahabad, contending that the answers ticked by them were correct and the key answers wrong. The High Court has accepted their contention and that is how the Kanpur University has come to file these appeals. There cannot be a more telling instance of 'Shishyat Ichhet Parajam' (Wish for defeat from your pupil). But the Gurus contend that the Shishyas are wrong and do not deserve to win." While taking note of the contention of the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of the key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong, the Supreme court in paragraph No.16 observed as under:- "16...................... We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those text-books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect." Although, in the fact situation involved in the aforesaid case, there was provision for publication of the answer key but that does not dilute the position of law declared by the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case. 19. 19. Then came the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Abhijit Sen and others v. State of U.P. and others; (1984) 2 SCC 319 , where the dictum of law laid down in the case of Kanpur University (supra) was followed. After long hiatus of two decades, the issue again cropped up for consideration of the Supreme Court in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Commission, Patna and others; (2004) 6 SCC 714 . The aforesaid decision was on the issue whether a candidate could seek re-evaluation of his answer books in the absence of any provision of re-evaluation. What was held by a three-Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in the aforesaid case in paragraph Nos. 7 and 8 reads thus:- "7. We have heard the appellant (writ-petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evalution of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth and others AIR 1984 SC 1543 . In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court was set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition was wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re-evaluated. 8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided." 20. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided." 20. The issue involved in the aforesaid case was, therefore, with respect to the right of a candidate to ask for re-evaluation of his marks in the absence of any provision of re-evaluation envisaged in the relevant Rules and the issue as to whether the examining body on being reported about the manifest errors and discrepancies in the Model Answer Keys can embark upon the exercise of re-verification of the answer keys and then re-evaluate the answer scripts was, however, not subject matter of adjudication in the aforesaid case. The issue squarely fell for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others; (2009) 1 SCC 599 , wherein a three-Judge Bench while dilating on the issue in paragraph Nos.32, 37, 38 and 39 held thus:- "32. The plea that there is absence of specific provision enabling the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts and, therefore, the Judgment impugned should not be interfered with, cannot be accepted. Re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. In such cases, what the Court should consider is whether the decision of the educational authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and in doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the authority. 33. ............................. 34............................. 35. ............................ 36. ............................ 37. Award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the Statute at the instance of candidate, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. Therefore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts re-evaluation may be found necessary. 38. Therefore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts re-evaluation may be found necessary. 38. There may be several instances wherein re-evaluation of the answer scripts may be required to be ordered and this Court need not make an exhaustive catalogue of the same. However, if the authorities are of the opinion that re-evaluation of the answer scripts is necessary then the Court would be slow to substitute its own views for that of those who are expert in academic matters. 39. Under the circumstances the plea advanced on behalf of the respondents that Vice-Chancellor of the N.T.R. University of Health, Sciences had no authority to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts, cannot be upheld. Therefore, this Court does not agree with the finding recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had no power or jurisdiction to order the re-verification of answer scripts. However, the facts indicate that the Vice-Chancellor had exercised power to order re-verification of answer scripts under pressure and coercion from the students and their parents and not independently on merits." 21. In a similar set of circumstances the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and others v. State of Bihar and others; (2013) 4 SCC 690 upheld the power of the examining body to correct the model answer keys. As a matter of fact, the judgment aforesaid begins with a sentence which is noteworthy. After granting the leave what was stated by the Supreme Court in its opening para may be reproduced hereunder:- "Application of an erroneous "model answer key" for evaluation of answer scripts of candidates appearing in a competitive examination is bound to lead to erroneous results and an equally erroneous inter se merit list of such candidates." 22. The Court further examined the issue whether in such situation where it is found that the model answer key applied by the examination body for evaluation is erroneous, should the whole examination be cancelled or direction could be issued to remove the defect in the model answer key and re-evaluate the answer scripts. After considering the aforesaid issue at length, the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.19 and 21 held thus:- "19. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. After considering the aforesaid issue at length, the Supreme Court in paragraph Nos.19 and 21 held thus:- "19. The submissions made by Mr. Rao are not without merit. Given the nature of the defect in the answer key the most natural and logical way of correcting the evaluation of the scripts was to correct the key and get the answer scripts re-evaluated on the basis thereof. There was, in the circumstances, no compelling reason for directing a fresh examination to be held by the Commission especially when there was no allegation about any malpractice, fraud or corrupt motives that could possibly vitiate the earlier examination to call for a fresh attempt by all concerned. The process of re-evaluation of the answer scripts with reference to the correct key will in addition be less expensive apart from being quicker. The process would also not give any unfair advantage to anyone of the candidates on account of the time lag between the examination earlier held and the one that may have been held pursuant to the direction of the High Court. Suffice it to say that the re-evaluation was and is a better option, in the facts and circumstances of the case. 20.............. 21. There is considerable merit in the submission of Mr. Rao. It goes without saying that the appellants were innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of the erroneous key or the distorted result. There is no mention of any fraud or malpractice against the appellants who have served the State for nearly seven years now. In the circumstances, while inter-se merit position may be relevant for the appellants, the ouster of the latter need not be an inevitable and inexorable consequence of such a re-evaluation. The re-evaluation process may additionally benefit those who have lost the hope of an appointment on the basis of a wrong key applied for evaluating the answer scripts. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list." 23. Such of those candidates as may be ultimately found to be entitled to issue of appointment letters on the basis of their merit shall benefit by such re-evaluation and shall pick up their appointments on that basis according to their inter se position on the merit list." 23. From the analysis of aforementioned judgments, following conclusion can be drawn:- (i) An examinee can ask for re-evaluation of his/her answer scripts and access to the model answer keys, if the Statute, Rules or Regulations governing the examination provide for it. (ii) Even in the absence of any specific provision in the Statute, Rules or Regulations governing the examination, the power to correct the model answer keys and re-evaluate the answer scripts of the candidates inheres in the examination body, unless there is specific prohibition in such Statute, Rules or Regulations. (iii) The Court may also permit re-evaluation or scrutiny, if it finds that the errors in the model answer keys are demonstrably erroneous without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. But this power shall be exercised by the Court only in rare and exceptional cases. (iv) Ordinarily, the questions set out in the question paper and the model answer keys prepared by the examination body with the assistance of experts are presumed to be correct and the Courts would be loathe to interfere with the opinion of the experts and there must be finality attached to the result of the public examination and in the absence of statutory provision, re-evaluation of answer scripts cannot be permitted other than in exceptional cases and as a rarity. (v) While the examination body has inherent power to correct the question paper and model answer key and direct re-evaluation, yet said power is to be exercised in a bona fide manner and should not be actuated by mala fide considerations or result in arbitrariness. In the aforesaid backdrop of legal position, we may now examine the case in hand. 24. The examination body, i.e., appellant herein is a constitutional authority constituted under Section 128 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. In terms of Section 133 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, it is the duty of the appellant to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State. 24. The examination body, i.e., appellant herein is a constitutional authority constituted under Section 128 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir. In terms of Section 133 of the Constitution of Jammu and Kashmir, it is the duty of the appellant to conduct examinations for appointments to the services of the State. Inherent in the function of the Commission, as enumerated in Section 133, is the duty to hold fair and transparent examinations and make all endeavors to maintain purity of such examinations. This duty carries with itself the responsibility to ensure that the model answer keys prepared for evaluating the answer scripts and questions set out in the question paper are correct so that a student who answers that questions correctly does not fail for the reason that though his answer is correct but it does not accord with the answer indicated in the model answer key. Such were the observations made by the Supreme Court in the cases of Kanpur University and Rajesh Kumar (supra). 25. We have carefully gone through the provisions of the Rules of 2005 and the Rules of 2008 but do not find any specific prohibition which puts a clog on the powers of the appellant to correct the erroneous model answer key and re-evaluate the papers. We are not impressed by the argument of Mr. Azhar Ul Amin, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, that the impugned process undertaken by the appellant does not amount to re-evaluation. The moment, the model answer key is corrected, its necessary fallout is re-evaluation of the answer scripts. As we have already held in the light of the law declared by the Supreme Court that the examination body, the Public Service Commission in this case, has inherent power to correct the errors, be it in question papers or the model answer keys and re-evaluate the answer scripts, unless there is specific prohibition in the Statute, Rules or Regulations. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 25, however, could not point out any such prohibition contained either in the Rules of 2008 or in the Rules of 2005. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. The learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 25, however, could not point out any such prohibition contained either in the Rules of 2008 or in the Rules of 2005. The contention of the learned senior counsel appearing for respondent Nos. 1 to 25 that the correction of model answer keys by the appellant and consequently re-evaluation of the answer scripts was beyond the jurisdiction of the appellant is, therefore, misconceived and cannot be accepted in the face of settled legal position. 26. Now, the only question that needs to be determined is as to whether the exercise undertaken by the appellant for correction of model answer keys and then re-evaluating the answer scripts of concerned subjects was fair, bona fide and aimed at ensuring the fairness, transparency and purity of the competitive examination in question. Learned senior counsel for the private respondents vehemently urged that the exercise undertaken by the appellant besides being contrary to the Statute was arbitrary, mala fide and aimed at conferring wrongful benefit on blue eyed persons and highly prejudicial to the interest of respondent Nos. 1 to 25 and others who had been shortlisted in the first result of the preliminary examination. Learned counsel further urged that the first model answer keys itself had been prepared by the experts nominated by the appellant and therefore, same should be presumed to be correct. He further submitted that in the absence of any provision, particularly with the deletion of Rule 12-B from the Rules of 2005, the examinees were not entitled to have access to the model answer keys. If that be the position, it is not understandable how the candidates/examinees were given access to the model answer keys which, as per the appellant, prompted such candidates to make representations for correction of various answers contained in the model answer keys. What persuaded the appellant to re-verify the model answer keys and go for re-evaluation is all shrouded in mystery. In such circumstances, contended learned counsel for the private respondents, the impugned exercise undertaken by the appellant could not be said to be fair and bona fide. 27. With a view to find out the facts and circumstances which led the appellant to undertake the exercise of re-verification of the model answer keys and then re-evaluate the answer scripts of the concerned subjects, we meticulously went through the original record produced by the Commission. 27. With a view to find out the facts and circumstances which led the appellant to undertake the exercise of re-verification of the model answer keys and then re-evaluate the answer scripts of the concerned subjects, we meticulously went through the original record produced by the Commission. From a bare perusal of the record, particularly representations made by some of the candidates pointing out errors in the model answer keys, it transpires that in response to applications moved by such candidates under Right to Information Act, not only the answer scripts but the model answer keys were also made available by the officials of the appellant. It is because of this reason only the candidates could point out the errors in the model answer keys. In their representations, such candidates are very specific about the errors in various answers given in the model answer keys. From the perusal of record, it further transpires that the appellant taking note of the various representations submitted by the candidates, media reports and the public opinion, undertook the exercise of re-verification of the model answer keys. This was apparently done by the appellant to instill faith of the public in fairness and impartiality of the appellant, it had been losing due to its failure to ensure that the answers contained in the model answer keys are correct and the candidates are correctly evaluated. Accordingly, the Chairman of the appellant vide its letter No.PSC/Chamn/01/2017 dated 14.06.2017 approached the vice Chancellors of Jammu/Kashmir Universities, SKUAST, Jammu and Srinagar and NIT, Srinagar for verification of 23 answer keys. Vide another order issued on 28.06.2017 two different Committees were constituted to examine the opinions of the experts of the aforesaid institutions for reporting variance, if any, and suggest further action to be taken in the matter. The aforesaid two Committees, one headed by a member of the Commission, Sh. Lal Chand and another headed by Sh. Jai Pal Singh, tallied/checked the answer keys of the different subjects and submitted their reports on 05.07.2017. The Committees found some of the allegations made by the candidates in the representations substantiated by the opinion of the experts of the aforesaid institutions. Since with respect to certain answers there was difference of opinion between the experts of two Institutes, the appellant decided to refer variations to the third party experts. This is how the services of outside experts were requisitioned. Since with respect to certain answers there was difference of opinion between the experts of two Institutes, the appellant decided to refer variations to the third party experts. This is how the services of outside experts were requisitioned. The appellant in its meeting held on 26.07.2017 and 27.07.2017 analyzed the discrepancies in the model answer keys received from experts of different institutions and decided to correct the answer keys and accordingly, re-evaluate the answer scripts. 28. We have carefully gone through the exercise undertaken by the Public Service Commission. The answers which were found by all the three experts incorrect unanimously were, accordingly, corrected. Where there was sharp cleavage in the opinion of experts inter se, with regard to an answer to a question, the said question itself was deleted. In some of the cases the decision was taken on the basis of majority opinion. Suffice it to say, we do not find anything illegal or mala fide in the exercise undertaken by the Commission. After noticing that there were many answers given in the model answer keys which were demonstrably erroneous, the decision was taken to correct the model answer keys and re-evaluate the answer scripts on the basis thereof. As a matter of fact, respondent Nos. 1 to 25 have also not pleaded any mala fide in the process of re-evaluation nor have they doubted the correctness of the updated and corrected model answer keys. The decision of the Public Service Commission, therefore, cannot be said to be illegal, arbitrary or actuated by any mala fide or extraneous considerations. 29. The Writ Court has not gone into this aspect and was primarily persuaded by the arguments of learned counsel for respondent Nos. 1 to 25 that correcting the erroneous model answer keys and re-evaluating the answer scripts would amount to changing the Rules of the game and therefore, impermissible in law. The Writ Court was further persuaded by the fact that re-evaluation of the answer scripts even after the deletion of Rule 12-B from the Rules of 2005 itself was sufficient to indicate that the exercise undertaken by the Public Service Commission was not bona fide and, thus, shrouded in mystery. We are sure that the appellant might not have produced the relevant record for the perusal of the Writ Court. We are sure that the appellant might not have produced the relevant record for the perusal of the Writ Court. We are also not persuaded to agree with the view taken by the Writ Court that with the deletion of Rule 12-B, nobody could have the access to the model answer keys. We say so because with the deletion of Rule 12-B, right of the candidates to have access to the model answer keys immediately after holding of the examination alone has been taken away but nothing prevents the candidates to apply under Right to Information Act to scrutinize their answer scripts and while doing so even claim access to the model answer keys. We are, however, not saying even for a moment that the candidates despite deletion of Rule 12-B have a right to have access to the model answer keys. But nothing prevents the appellant to provide such keys to a candidate at the time of scrutiny of answer scripts which the candidate has requested by invoking his right under Right to Information Act. 30. At this stage, we, however, hasten to add that deletion of the provision like 12-B, which existed in the Rules of 2005 was totally unreasonable, uncalled for and counterproductive. Though, the aforesaid provision has been deleted from the statute, yet there is no clog put on the power of the Commission to adopt the procedure as was envisaged under 12-B of the Rules of 2005 and put the answer keys for display on its website so that the corrective measures to rectify the errors and discrepancies are taken well in time and in any case before the evaluation of the answer scripts. This would avoid the controversy like the one that has arisen in the instant case. We, therefore, hold that the absence of Rule 12-B in the statute, that is, the Rules of 2005 does not, in any manner, effect the power of the Commission to publish the answer keys immediately after the declaration of the result of the preliminary examination and invite objections thereto within a fixed period. The Commission would be well within its right to examine the representations and if these are found to be of some merit, to take immediate remedial measures for rectification of the model answer keys. The Commission would be well within its right to examine the representations and if these are found to be of some merit, to take immediate remedial measures for rectification of the model answer keys. Such power is inherent in the Public Service Commission by virtue of its creation by the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir and entrustment on it of the constitutional duty to conduct competitive examinations for appointment to the services of the State. The power conferred upon the Commission under Section 133(1) of the Constitution of J&K is wide enough to encompass the power to ensure fairness and impartiality in the selection process and to maintain utmost transparency and purity in examinations. The publication of answer keys for inviting objections from the aggrieved candidates is a facet of transparency which is required to be ensured by the Commission at all costs. This would also instil faith in the Institution and would avoid uncalled for litigation which, more than often, delays the selection. The delay in making selections and appointments is prejudicial both to the candidates and the government. 31. In view of the observations made herein above, we leave it to the Commission to consider restoration of Rule 12-B on the Statute Book or otherwise provide similar procedure as is laid down therein, even without making any specific provision in the Rules. That would, otherwise, be in consonance with the duty assigned to the Commission by virtue of Section 133 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir. 32. The natural fallout and the consequence of the view which we have taken would have been the dismissal of the writ petition but we cannot lose sight of the fact that respondent Nos. 1 to 25 and other similarly situated candidates who were shortlisted in the first result of the preliminary examination are innocent parties who have not, in any manner, contributed to the preparation of the erroneous keys and thereby erroneous result. There is also no allegation of any fraud or mal-practice committed by such candidates. Besides, we have found that there were no allegations about any mal-practice, fraud or motive vitiating the earlier result. The re-verification of the model answer keys and the re-evaluation of the answer scripts by the Public Service Commission were actuated by its own doings to which respondent Nos. Besides, we have found that there were no allegations about any mal-practice, fraud or motive vitiating the earlier result. The re-verification of the model answer keys and the re-evaluation of the answer scripts by the Public Service Commission were actuated by its own doings to which respondent Nos. 1 to 25 and the candidates similarly situated cannot be said to be privy and therefore, cannot be penalized. This was so held by the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar (surpa). There is also substance in the submission made by the learned senior counsel appearing for the private respondents that by declaring 429 candidates which include respondent Nos. 1 to 25 qualified to participate in the main examination, there was a semblance of legitimate expectation entertained by such candidates. Taking into consideration the aforesaid factors, we find that the direction issued by the Writ Court to permit respondent Nos. 1 to 25 and other similarly situated candidates, who were writ petitioners, to participate in the in the main examination along with those who made it on the basis of re-evaluation was the right direction in the facts and circumstances of the case. However, we cannot lose sight of the fact that if we permit all those candidates like the private respondents who were shortlisted in the first result of the preliminary examination, then the candidates who have now, in the process of re-evaluation, been found to have secured marks higher than those of 429 candidates, cannot be left out of the process of main examination. By virtue of their merit determined upon re-evaluation (which we have held to be legal), 2365 candidates (figure given by the appellant) have found to have secured marks equal to or higher than the marks secured by the last candidate amongst 429 candidates. 33. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that permitting respondent Nos. 1 to 25 and other similarly situated candidates in the main examination as directed by the Writ Court, would be possible only by doing violence to the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008 is not acceptable. 33. The contention of the learned counsel appearing for the appellant that permitting respondent Nos. 1 to 25 and other similarly situated candidates in the main examination as directed by the Writ Court, would be possible only by doing violence to the provisions of Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008 is not acceptable. It is true that the Commission is enjoined to shortlist the candidates for participating in the main examination such number of candidates as would constitute either 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who appear in the preliminary examination or twenty five times the total number of vacancies to be filled up, whichever is lower. But the aforesaid Rule is not an inflexible Rule and the fact that it uses the expression "as far as practicable" itself gives reasonable latitude to the Public Service Commission to exceed the ratio provided in the aforesaid Rule, if the same is warranted by the fact situation of a particular examination. Needless to say, the purpose of Rule 8 (2) of the Rules of 2008 which provides for a number ratio for the purpose of shortlisting on the basis of screening test is only to restrict the candidates to a manageable limit for the purpose of their participation in the main examination. The merit of the candidates, however, is to be determined on the basis of main examination which consists of written (main) as well as interview. Given the object sought to be achieved by the process of shortlisting provided under Rule 8 of the Rules of 2008, we hold that the provision made for restricting the candidates to the main examination equal to 1/3rd of the total number of candidates who appear in the preliminary examination or twenty five times to the total number of vacancies to be filled up is flexible and the term used in the Rule, "as far as practicable" substantiates our view. Otherwise also, this Court in its extra ordinary jurisdiction vested under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Section 103 of the Constitution of Jammu & Kashmir has ample power to act ex debito justitiae and mould the relief to do complete justice between the parties. 34. That being the position, keeping these 2365 candidates out of the process of selection would be doing grave injustice to such candidates and would generate unnecessary litigation. 34. That being the position, keeping these 2365 candidates out of the process of selection would be doing grave injustice to such candidates and would generate unnecessary litigation. We have been told that the appellant have proceeded with the main examination and 429 candidates, who had been earlier shortlisted in the first result of the preliminary examination but had gone out of zone upon re-evaluation, alone have been allowed to participate in addition to the candidates who have made it to the main examination on the basis of their merit determined in the process of re-evaluation. 35. For all that said and discussed above and having been left with no option, we direct the cancellation of the main examination at whatever stage it is as on date and direct the appellant to hold the main examination afresh by permitting the following set of candidates to participate:- (i) the candidates who have been shortlisted to participate in the preliminary examination on the basis of their merit determined upon re-evaluation, (ii) the candidates numbering 429 who were shortlisted in the first result of the preliminary examination but could not make it to participate in the main examination on the basis of their merit determined in the process of re-evaluation, and (iii) all those candidates (PSC puts their number as 2365) who have obtained merit in the preliminary examination determined in the process of re-evaluation equal to or more than the marks secured by the last candidate amongst aforesaid 429 candidates. 36. Since the examination in question has been delayed due to litigation, we hope and trust that the appellant would take immediate steps to hold the main examination and complete the whole process culminating into declaration of result without any further wastage of time. 37. With the aforesaid directions, the appeal stands disposed of. In the peculiar facts of the case, we do not order any costs. 38. Record be returned back to the learned counsel for the Public Service Commission.

J&K PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION v. HIDAYAT AHMAD MIR