JUDGMENT : Since in the aforementioned writ applications the reliefs sought for are more or less identical, with the consent of the respective counsels, the matters have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common order. 2. In the accompanied writ applications, the petitioners have challenged the result of the examination held for the High School Urdu Teacher pursuant to the Advertisement dated 28.02.2008, published in the 'Prabhat Khabar', (Hindi Dainik), Ranchi and consequent thereupon, the High School Urdu Teachers have been appointed and the petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3094 of 2010 have sought for re-evaluation of the answer books and for direction upon the respondents-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to forthwith declare fresh results for the post of High School Urdu Teachers under the Human Resources Development Department by proper evaluation of the entire mark-sheets. 3. The petitioners in W.P. (S) No. 3644 of 2010 a part from, praying for cancellation of High School Teachers' Examination, have sought for a direction to the respondents to take appropriate steps for initiating a fresh selection for filling up the posts of Urdu High School Teacher. 4. The brief facts leading to filing of the writ applications are that in pursuance to the Advertisement published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission in 'Prabhat Khabar' (Hindi Daily) from Ranchi on 28.02.2008 for filling up the posts of High School Urdu Teachers' Examination, the petitioners duly appeared in the Preliminary Examination and got through (Passed). As per the syllabus published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission for High School Urdu Teachers, a candidate has to touch 24 questions as a total and four questions from each group and in this manner, the candidates were required to answer 24 questions, but, subsequently, the petitioners came to know that 12 questions have to be answered and the result was declared against their Roll Nos. and the petitioners were declared fail. Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the petitioners submitted representations, which failed to evoke any response from the respondents. Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the petitioners have sought for re-evaluation of the question/answer papers and for fresh selection. 5. and the petitioners were declared fail. Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the petitioners submitted representations, which failed to evoke any response from the respondents. Being aggrieved by the non-selection, the petitioners have sought for re-evaluation of the question/answer papers and for fresh selection. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have vehemently submitted that in view of the action of the respondents i.e. Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the less meritorious students have been declared successful and the petitioners being more meritorious, have been left out from selection, therefore, the answer papers of the petitioners ought to be reevaluated, so as to obviate the discrimination, as has been meted out to the petitioners. Learned counsel further submits that the Rules of the game ought not to be changed/altered during midst of the selection, but, in the instant case, the petitioners were kept in dark, as to how many questions are to be answered, as a result of which, the petitioners apprehend that less qualified and less meritorious candidates have been selected on the post of the teachers in comparison to highly qualified and meritorious candidates and the action of the respondents is in breach of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. Learned counsel further submits that the action of the respondents in adopting and fixing different pattern of the examination for recruitment being arbitrary and in contravention of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India, warrants interference by this Court. Learned counsel further submits that in view of the deviation in the examination from the syllabus, is a sufficient ground to warrant interference under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6. In support of his contentions, learned counsel for the petitioners has referred to the following decisions :- (i) in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors.-versus-State of U.P. & Ors., rendered in Civil Appeal No. 367 of 2017 and its batch of cases. (ii) in the case of Anjuman Taraqqui-e-Urdu Jharkhand & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand (Jhr) & Ors., reported in 2012 (1) JCR 298 (Jhr). 7. Repudiating the contentions raised in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. (ii) in the case of Anjuman Taraqqui-e-Urdu Jharkhand & Ors. v. State of Jharkhand (Jhr) & Ors., reported in 2012 (1) JCR 298 (Jhr). 7. Repudiating the contentions raised in the writ application, a counter affidavit has been filed by the respondents. In the counter affidavit, it has been, inter alia, submitted that the advertisement for appointment of Urdu teachers in High Schools was published by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission through the Advertisement No. 12 of 2008, and thereafter, certain amendments were made in the aforesaid Advertisement No. 12/2008, which was notified in the daily Hindi newspaper 'Hindustan', dated 16.07.2008. It has been submitted that the mistake has been committed by the question setter in asking the examinees to answer 24 questions instead of 12 questions only. A meeting of the Commission was held on 16.02.2010 and it was unanimously resolved that as only 12 questions were to be answered, as such evaluation of the answers will be done on the basis of 12 questions only. Those examinees who have written answers of more than 12 questions, in their case, all the answers will be evaluated but the marks of only those 12 questions will be taken into account having obtained the highest marks from all the answers. Best of the 12 answers have been calculated for the result as per the order of the Commission dated 16.02.2010 as per Annexure-B to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that the aforesaid decision was taken in the interest of the students and following the principles of equity, so that no injustice is done to any examinee and the answer of the petitioners were also evaluated by following the same principles as per the decision taken by the Commission and they were awarded the marks accordingly, as such, no injustice and unfairness were shown to the petitioners. It has further been submitted that the petitioners, who belong to OBC category, did not obtain 181 marks (cut-off marks) in Urdu subject and, as such, could not qualify for being recommended for appointment on the post of teachers of Urdu in High Schools. The cut-off marks for the General candidates was 186 and for OBC, it was 181 marks and the petitioners did not obtain the marks and, as such, they were not recommended and selected for appointment on the post of Urdu teachers, as per Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. The cut-off marks for the General candidates was 186 and for OBC, it was 181 marks and the petitioners did not obtain the marks and, as such, they were not recommended and selected for appointment on the post of Urdu teachers, as per Annexure-C to the counter affidavit. It has further been stated that the name of 39 candidates of General category and 10 candidates from the OBC category, have already been recommended to the Government of Jharkhand, H.R.D. Department for their appointment on the post of Urdu Teachers in the High Schools. The names of two pending candidates, one each for General and OBC, have also been recommended and accordingly, the Director, Secondary Education, Government of Jharkhand was informed through letter dated 10.06.2010 and 28.08.2010 respectively as per Annexure-D and D/1 to the counter affidavit. It has further been submitted that there is no provision for re-evaluation of the answers and, as such, the demand of the petitioners for re-evaluation is completely mis-conceived and unwarranted and therefore, liable to be rejected. It has further been submitted that the Commission has taken a reasonable decision in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and taken into consideration the principle of equity. It has further been stated that only provision is for re-totalling/scrutiny of marks for which a candidate has to apply within the prescribed time and has also to deposit the requisite fee and for this purpose, the petitioners have not availed the benefits of this provision and, as such, the question of scrutiny or re-totalling does not arise. 8. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents-JPSC a part from defending the action of the respondents, has submitted that it is a settled principle of law that re-evaluation of the answer papers is not permissible. 9. 8. Mr. Abhay Prakash, learned counsel for the respondents-JPSC a part from defending the action of the respondents, has submitted that it is a settled principle of law that re-evaluation of the answer papers is not permissible. 9. Having heard the learned counsel for the respective parties and on perusal of the records, this Court is of the considered opinion that the petitioners do not make out a case for interference due to the following facts, reasons and judicial pronouncements : - (i) Admittedly, as per the assertion disclosed in the counter affidavit, the answer papers of the candidates with the highest marks of 12 questions have been taken into account and the best of the 12 answers have been calculated for the result as per the decision of the Commission, as such, there is no injustice or unfairness shown to the petitioners, since all the candidates have been subjected to the same difficulties on the principles of equity and the decision has been taken by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to evaluate the best 12 answers out of 24, therefore, the petitioners cannot possibly have any cause for grievance so as to make out a case for discrimination under Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution of India. (ii) That apart, the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors.-versus-State of U.P. & Ors. Reported in 2017 SCC Online SC 1448 has illuminatively summarized in paragraphs 26 and 27, which is quoted hereunder : “26. In Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission the question under consideration was whether the High Court was right in directing re-evaluation of the answer book of a candidate in the absence of any provision entitling the candidate to ask for re-evaluation. This Court noted that there was no provision in the concerned Rules for re-evaluation but only a provision for scrutiny of the answer book “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.” This Court reiterated the conclusion in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth that “in the absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. 27. The principle laid down by this Court in Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth was affirmed in Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and it was reiterated that there must be finality attached to the result of a public examination and in the absence of a statutory provision re-evaluation of answer scripts cannot be permitted and that it could be done only in exceptional cases and as a rarity. Reference was also made to Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and President, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar 10. In view of the reasons stated in the foregoing paragraphs and judicial pronouncements of the Hon'ble Apex Court, this Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer of the petitioners. Resultantly, the writ applications [W.P. (S) Nos. 3094 with 3644 of 2010] being devoid of merit, stand dismissed.