JUDGMENT : Hon'ble Rajesh Singh Chauhan,J. By means of the bunch of these writ petitions the petitioners have challenged the Examination of The Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test, 2017 (Primary Level) (hereinafter referred to as TET, 2017 in short) on the ground that the aforesaid examination has been conducted contrary to the guidelines issued by the National Council for Teachers Education (hereinafter referred to as the NCTE in short). Further, the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., Allahabad ( hereinafter referred to as the Examination Regulatory Authority in short) through its Secretary / Registrar has issued the Government Order dated 24.12.2014 whereby syllabus adopted and issued was not only against the guidelines of NCTE but also the questions have not been asked strictly in accordance with the guidelines of NCTE. Some of the petitioners raised the ground that several questions having multiple options were wrong in the sense that none of the options were correct answers to the concerned questions and several questions have more than one answers. Therefore, by raising aforesaid anomaly, the petitioners prayed that the TET, 2017 be canceled and a fresh TET examination be conducted strictly as per the syllabus adopted through Government Order dated 24.12.2014 and Government Order dated 21.8.2017 prior to conducting Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018. The petitioners have, however, prayed some reliefs to the effect that Examination Regulatory Authority be commanded to revise the result of TET, 2017 by providing grace mark for ambiguous questions and for those questions which are beyond the syllabus. Some of the petitioners have prayed that the NCTE be directed to conduct the fact-finding inquiry to ascertain as to whether the questions papers were set up strictly with its guidelines and if it is found that the question papers were not set up strictly as per guidelines, the examination of TET, 2017 be canceled and a fresh examination be conducted at the earliest within a period stipulated by this Court. Further, in the leading petition i.e. Mohd. Rizwan and others the prayer for quashing the answer-key of TET Examination, 2017 (Paper-1) dated 6.11.2017 issued by the Examination Regulatory Committee has also been prayed, besides the other reliefs prayed in other writ petitions indicated hereinabove. 1. Heard S/Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, Pt. Further, in the leading petition i.e. Mohd. Rizwan and others the prayer for quashing the answer-key of TET Examination, 2017 (Paper-1) dated 6.11.2017 issued by the Examination Regulatory Committee has also been prayed, besides the other reliefs prayed in other writ petitions indicated hereinabove. 1. Heard S/Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauriya, Pt. S. Chandra, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, Alok Misra, Onkar Singh, Swatantra Dev, Anand Dubey, Brijesh Kumar Pandey, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Paritosh Shukla, P.S. Pandey, Ranjana Srivastav, Atul Singh and Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri Himanshu Raghav for the Intervenor and Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate General assisted by Sri Hari Govind Upadhyaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. 2. The facts and circumstances of the issue are as under : 3. The petitioners in the aforesaid bunch of writ petitions are either Shiksha Mitras or B.T.C. Some of Shiksha Mitras are the reverted Assistant Teachers of Primary Schools run by the Board of Basic Education, Uttar Pradesh ; some of the petitioners being the B.T.C. trained Shiksha Mitras and some of the petitioners are only having the qualification of B.T.C. 4. It would be relevant to point out, precisely, the background of appointment of Shiksha Mitras for the State-run primary schools. 5. On 24.4.1993 Part-IX has been inserted in the Constitution of India vide 73 Constitutional Amendment and thereby Item No. 17 of 11th Schedule provides that Primary Eduction may be entrusted to the Panchayat constituted under Article 243-B of the Constitution of India. 6. So as to let the Constitutional mandate and aforesaid an Office Memo was issued on 12.4.1999 under the Authority of his Excellencey the Governor of Uttar Pradesh, thereby Panchayats have been assigned with the duties of all affairs relating to Primary Education including appointment of para-teachers on honorarium. 7. From 1999 to 2006 petitioners were appointed on the post of Shiksha Mitras and were imparting education to the Children of State-run Primary Schools. 8. National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has been declared Academic Authority by the Central Government vide a notification in exercise of power u/s 29(1) of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ( hereinafter referred to as the RTE Act in short) 9. 8. National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE) has been declared Academic Authority by the Central Government vide a notification in exercise of power u/s 29(1) of Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 ( hereinafter referred to as the RTE Act in short) 9. Vide 86th Constitution Amendment Article 21-A inserted in the Constitution of India and it has been mandated that State shall provide free and compulsory education to all the children of the age of 6 to 14 years and thereby Right of Children to Free & Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (RTE Act) came into force. 10. On 23.8.2010 vide a notification NCTE, the academic authority as aforesaid, laid down minimum qualification for a person to be appointed as Teacher in Class I to VIII, wherein passing of Teacher Eligibility Test (TET) to be conducted by the appropriate Government in accordance with guideline framed by NCTE has been made one of the minimum qualification. 11. For conducting the Teacher Eligibility Test by the appropriate Government the NCTE issued detailed guidelines on 11.2.2011 containing therein the structure and contents of Examination Papers and nature and standard of questions etc. 12. By amending the earlier government orders issued for conducting TET a new Government Order on 24.12.2014 was issued and thereby detailed guidelines relating to syllabus, structure and contents of Examination Papers and nature and standard of questions etc. was issued. 13. The petitioners were imparted 2 years Diploma in Elementary Teachers Education (D.El.Ed.) by the State Government after getting approval from National Council for Teachers Education and petitioners were issued certificates. 14. The petitioners being the B.T.C. trained Shiksha Mitras provided appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher in the State-run Primary Schools through absorption. 15. Absorption of the aforesaid petitioners was nullified by the Special Bench of this Hon'ble Court on 12.9.2015 in Writ -A 34833 of 2014 Anand Kumar Yadav and others vs. Union of India & others'. 16. On 7.12.2015 the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of judgment and order dated 12.09.2015. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court on 25.7.2017 upheld the decision of Special Bench in respect of absorption of Shiksha Mitras, however, pleased to provide opportunity of participation in two consecutive recruitments in case the Shiksha Mitras acquire requisite qualification. 18. 16. On 7.12.2015 the Hon'ble Supreme Court stayed the operation of judgment and order dated 12.09.2015. 17. The Hon'ble Apex Court on 25.7.2017 upheld the decision of Special Bench in respect of absorption of Shiksha Mitras, however, pleased to provide opportunity of participation in two consecutive recruitments in case the Shiksha Mitras acquire requisite qualification. 18. The State Government vide Government Order dated 21.8.2017 directed the Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P., a unit of State Council for Education, Research and Training to conduct the UPTET-2017 by adopting the syllabus and guidelines for contents, structure and design of question papers as given by the Government Order dated 24.12.2014. 19. The respondents when countered with such a situation of conducting TET, 2014 (Bhasha) without following the syllabus and content and structure as per guidelines for NCTE, respondents given had an undertaking that they shall follow in future all guidelines / mandatory requirement prescribed by NCTE for conducting TET in Public Interest Litigation being W.P. No. 2530 of 2014 (M/B) 'Nutan Thakur vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others'. 20. On 15.10.2017 UPTET, 2017 held in the State wherein petitioners appeared. 21. As per schedule in Government Order dated 21.8.2017 the Examination Regulatory Authority (ERA) has to issue answer-key on its websites, but same has been issued on 18.10.2017. 22. As per schedule in G.O. dated 21.8.2017 last date for submission of objection was 21.10.2017, but same has been extended up till 30.10.2017 vide notice dated 18.10.2017 issued by the Examination Regulatory Authority. 23. As per schedule in G.O. dated 21.8.2017 the Examination Regulatory Authority has to constitute a committee of subject experts to consider the objection and issue the final key answer as per report of Subject Expert Committee on 30.10.2017, however, objection were received up till 30.10.2017. 24. Due to discrepancies committed by the Examination Regulatory Authority in respect of questions asked in UPTET, 2017 having more than one choice, incorrect or confusing questions with confusing and ambiguous answers have been raised by filing Writ Petition No. 28222(S/S) of 2017 : Mohd. Rizwan and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others. The aforesaid matter was heard on admission on 22.11.2017 and this Court has passed an order dated 22.11.2017 which is being reproduced herein below : "Notices on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 are accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel and on behalf of respondent no. Rizwan and others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others. The aforesaid matter was heard on admission on 22.11.2017 and this Court has passed an order dated 22.11.2017 which is being reproduced herein below : "Notices on behalf of respondents no. 1 to 3 are accepted by learned Chief Standing Counsel and on behalf of respondent no. 4, it has been accepted by Sri Sudhanshu Chauhan, Advocate. Learned counsel for respondents may file Counter Affidavits by the next date of listing. In the counter affidavits, respondents shall specifically reply to para nos. 19 & 30 of writ petition regarding correctness of answers to questions referred to in said paragraphs. Meanwhile, it is open for respondents to reconsider matter regarding correctness of their final answer keys before declaration of result. If any result is declared by respondents, it shall be subject to final decision of this writ petition. List alongwith Writ Petition No. 27700(S/S) of 2000 on 13th December, 2017." 25. By means of aforesaid order dated 22.11.2017 this Court has directed that if any result is declared by the respondents it shall be subject to the final decision of this writ petition. After orders dated 22.11.2017, 13.12.2017, 10.1.2018 the counter affidavit has been filed by the State-respondents enclosing therewith the copy of the report of experts. It is not out of place to mention here that the result of TET was declared on 15.12.2017. This Court has categorically observed that the aforesaid report does not appear to be an Expert Report in real sense vide order dated 12.1.2018. The aforesaid order is being reproduced herein below : "Counter affidavit on behalf of opposite party No.2 and 3 filed today by the learned standing counsel is taken on record. Along with the counter affidavit some expert reports are claimed to be filed. I have perused the reports. One of the said report is given by a Joint Director of Education, who retired from Dehradun. It is now clear as to how he is the subject expert. The said reports are signed by number of persons. It is not clear as to whether a Committee was constituted or the reports are given by one person and thereafter countersigned by others. Even otherwise, the experts have merely said which answer is correct. There is no material to support the said conclusion. The said reports are signed by number of persons. It is not clear as to whether a Committee was constituted or the reports are given by one person and thereafter countersigned by others. Even otherwise, the experts have merely said which answer is correct. There is no material to support the said conclusion. Learned standing counsel submits that it appears that some subject committees might have been constituted for the said purpose and he shall file report of said committee within three days. Let the matter be fixed for 17.1.2018 in the Additional Cause List. By the said date, learned standing counsel shall place all the relevant document and detailed report of Committee before this Court." 26. Vide order dated 12.1.2018 the next date was fixed for 17.1.2018 and again on 19.1.2018. On 19.1.2018 this Court has directed the counsel for the parties to exchange the pleadings so that the matter could be heard finally. The order dated 19.1.2018 is being reproduced herein below : "Learned standing counsel on instructions submits that he has already obtained the details of books on the basis of which experts have given their opinion. Learned counsel for opposite parties prays for and are granted time till 24.01.2018 to bring on record the relevant portion of the books by way of supplementary affidavit. Learned counsel for petitioner shall also file his reply to the said affidavit by 29.01.2018. Put up this case as unlisted on 29.01.2018 along with Writ Petition No.27700 (S/S) of 2017, Writ Petition No.27814 (S/S) of 2017, Writ Petition No.31123 (S/S) of 2017, Writ Petition No. 32039 (S/S) of 2017, Writ Petition No.32254 (S/S) of 2017, Writ Petition No.29843 (S/S) of 2017 and Writ Petition No.1567 (S/S) of 2018. On the said date, the matter shall be heard and finally disposed of." 27. The aforesaid matter was again listed on 29.1.2018 and thereafter on 30.1.2018. 28. It appears that the State-respondents were not ready for final hearing, inasmuch as, the relevant material as per the directions of this Court was not produced, therefore, the objection was made by the State-respondents that since the matter in question is not related to service matter, therefore, it should be heard by the Bench dealing with the service matters. It is to be noted that no such argument was raised by the State Government since November, 2017. It is to be noted that no such argument was raised by the State Government since November, 2017. However, on account of aforesaid objection, this Court was pleased to pass an order dated 30.1.2018 which is being reproduced herein below : "Connect with Writ Petition No.2422 (S/S) of 2018; Writ Petition No.2425 (S/S) of 2018; Writ Petition No.2304 (S/S) of 2018; Writ Petition No.2334 (S/S) of 2018; and Writ Petition No.2546 (S/S) of 2018 and other connected matters. These petitions are filed by the petitioners challenging the examination process of Teachers Eligibility Test Examination, 2017. The main challenge in these petitions is regarding answers key and it is submitted that on certain answers the Answer-Key is incorrect, and therefore, entire process is incorrect. Further, it is also argued that design slab and out of syllabus/subjects questions were also put and considered in the examination. An objection is raised by the learned standing counsel that these matters are not service matters. It is only pre-qualification test and thereafter, a written examination is further required to be taken which is not advertised in January 17/23, 2018. Some of the petitioners point out that even the said examination is also challenged in some of the writ petitions and hence in view thereof, these matters are service matters. Learned counsels for petitioners also point out that there is grave urgency as the last date of filling up of next level examination is 5.2.2018. However, since there is a dispute as to which Court will have the jurisdiction in these matters, it would be appropriate to place the matter before Hon'ble the Senior Judge for nomination of appropriate Bench. The nomination if possible, may be obtained today, looking into the urgency in the matter as detailed above. Hence put up today, if possible, before Hon'ble Senior Judge for nomination and after nomination, if possible, the matter may be placed before the appropriate Bench tomorrow i.e., 31.1.2018." 29. Thereafter the matter was again listed on 31.1.2018 and this Court has passed the following order : "Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh 'Bhadauriya', learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. Thereafter the matter was again listed on 31.1.2018 and this Court has passed the following order : "Heard Sri Amit Kumar Singh 'Bhadauriya', learned counsel for the petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. The paper-book of this case has been put up before the Court after getting nomination from the Hon'ble Senior Judge at 3.30 P.M. Learned Standing Counsel has submitted that he has received the paper-book of this case at 3.30 P.M. therefore, he could not prepare the case. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that in the aforesaid matter the arguments have already been advanced by both the parties and since the paper-book of this case was put up before the Hon'ble Senior Judge for nomination, therefore, the learned Standing Counsel cannot say that they are not prepared. Looking into the urgency of the matter, the case is fixed for tomorrow i.e. 1.2.2018. In the meantime, the learned Standing Counsel may seek appropriate instructions in the matter. Since the matter is urgent, therefore, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel would be at liberty to call any officer who is well versed with the matter to assist the Court." 30. On 1.2.2018 the learned counsel for the petitioners filed supplementary affidavit and matter was fixed for 2.2.2018. 31. On 2.2.2018 when the learned counsel for the petitioners started argument, the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel sought adjournment on the ground that learned Advocate General would be arguing the matter and he was out of station. Since the matter was important, therefore, the learned counsel for the petitioners argued the matter on that date at some length but the matter was posted for next week on the request of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. The order dated 2.2.2018 is as follows : "Heard S/Sri Pt. S. Chandra, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, Amit Bhadauriya, Alok Misra, Onkar Singh, Swatantra Dev, Anand Dubey, Brijesh Kumar Pandey, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Paritosh Shukla, P.S. Pandey, Ranjana Srivastav, Atul Singh and Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri Pradeep Singh and Sri Hari Govind Upadhyaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State-respondents. By means of bunch of writ petitions the petitioners have assailed the inaction on the part of opposite parties whereby the examination of Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test, 2017 has been conducted without following the guidelines applicable in the issue. By means of bunch of writ petitions the petitioners have assailed the inaction on the part of opposite parties whereby the examination of Uttar Pradesh Teachers Eligibility Test, 2017 has been conducted without following the guidelines applicable in the issue. The petitioners have submitted that while conducting the aforesaid examination as many as 16 questions were doubtful, 5 questions were beyond syllabus and some of questions have not been asked as per the guidelines despite the fact that in the identical issue i.e. Nutan Thakur vs. State of Uttar Pradesh : Writ Petition No. 2530 (M/B) of 2014, the respondents have recorded their statements that the State shall follow all guidelines and mandatory requirements, so prescribed by the National Council for Teachers Education (NCTE) for conducting examination for recruitment. In the instant case the learned counsel for the petitioners have demonstrated certain material to show that neither the guidelines have been followed by the opposite parties properly and strictly in accordance with law nor the committee of experts have properly been formed to examine the objections filed by the candidates. Not only the above vide order dated 12.1.2018 this Court was pleased to direct the opposite parties to file the Subject Committee which was constituted to remove / examine the anomalies of questions but the said report has not been filed before the Court within the time stipulated. However, learned Standing Counsel has submitted that he has got the said report with him and it shall be demonstrated before the Court on the next date of listing. The learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that this matter would be argued by the learned Advocate General who is out of station today, therefore, the case may be adjourned for today. On the aforesaid request of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel the case is adjourned for today. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, prima-facie, it appears that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners find force and, therefore, the matter requires consideration. Since the last date for making registration to appear in the examination in question is 5.2.2018, therefore, the interim protection is granted to the petitioners. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, prima-facie, it appears that the submission of learned counsel for the petitioners find force and, therefore, the matter requires consideration. Since the last date for making registration to appear in the examination in question is 5.2.2018, therefore, the interim protection is granted to the petitioners. As an interim measure, it is directed that the last date for making registration to appear in the examination of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018 which is to be conducted in pursuance of Government Order dated 17.1.2018 would be extended up to 12.2.2018 for the petitioners only. It is made clear that the aforesaid protection would be given only to the petitioners who are before the Court as on today by filing aforesaid writ petitions and the authorities are directed to pass necessary orders only for the petitioners that they would be permitted to make registration till 12.2.2018 instead of 5.2.2018 in respect of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018. List / put up in the next week when this Bench is available." 32. The Special Appeal No. 48 of 2018 was filed by the State-respondents challenging the aforesaid order dated 2.2.2018 but vide order dated 8.2.2018 the Special Appeal was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court. 33. The matter was again listed on 8.2.2018, by that time the special appeal had already been dismissed. On 8.2.2018 again the request was made by the State-respondents for adjournment of the case on the same ground that matter would be argued by the learned Advocate General and on that date again he was out of station. The case was adjourned on 8.2.2018 with caution that it shall not be adjourned again by fixing date as 9.2.2018. On 9.2.2018 the learned Chief Sanding Counsel requested for adjournment of the case on the same ground. Considering the importance of the case in hand the counsel for the petitioners were permitted to raise their respective arguments in the presence of the learned Chief Standing Counsel so that no adjournment be sought again. Further, the case was adjourned on the request of learned Chief Standing Counsel on 9.2.2018, the aforesaid order is as follows : "Heard S/Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauria, Pt. Further, the case was adjourned on the request of learned Chief Standing Counsel on 9.2.2018, the aforesaid order is as follows : "Heard S/Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadauria, Pt. S. Chandra, Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi, Alok Misra, Onkar Singh, Swatantra Dev, Anand Dubey, Brijesh Kumar Pandey, Vinod Kumar Gupta, Paritosh Shukla, P.S. Pandey, Ranjana Srivastav, Atul Singh and Prashant Shukla, learned counsel for the petitioners. Sri Ramesh Pandey, learned Chief Standing Counsel has submitted that this matter would be argued by the learned Advocate General who is out of station today, therefore, the matter may be adjourned for today. It is to be noted that on 02.02.2018, the adjournment was sought for the reasons that the matter would be argued by the learned Advocate General, who was out of station on that date. The same request was made on 08.02.2018 and today i.e. 09.02.2018 itself. This Court, vide order dated 08.02.2018 has already shown the legitimate expectation from the State-respondents that no adjournment would be sought on 09.02.2018 but again the request for adjournment has been made by the State-respondents on the same reason whereas the counsel for the petitioner are ready for arguments. Therefore, learned counsel for the petitioners have been permitted to place their submission in detail even in the presence of learned Chief Standing Counsel. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the State-respondents have placed one undated letter preferred to Sachiv (without indicating the complete address of 'Sachiv/ Secretary'). The perusal of the aforesaid letter does not reveal that as to who has preferred this letter to the Sachiv. Learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall provide the photocopy of the aforesaid letter to the Court today itself and the same is taken on record. Since the issue in question is a very important and the request of the learned Chief Standing Counsel that the learned Advocate General would argue this matter, therefore, the aforesaid request of learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel is accepted. However, it is clarified that the aforesaid case would not be adjourned on the next date of listing and the matter would be argued by the learned counsel for the parties concerned. List this case in the next week whenever this Bench is available. If the learned Advocate General is not present on that date, he shall make any alternative arrangement so that no adjournment could be sought on the said date. List this case in the next week whenever this Bench is available. If the learned Advocate General is not present on that date, he shall make any alternative arrangement so that no adjournment could be sought on the said date. As an interim measure, the last date for making registration to appear in the written examination of Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018, which is to be conducted on 12.03.2018 as per the Government Order dated 17.01.2018, which was extended from 05.02.2018 to 12.02.2018 vide earlier order of this Court dated 02.02.2018 is hereby extended upto 19.02.2018." 34. The matter was again put up on 15.2.2018. On the said date the learned Advocate General argued the matter for State-respondents but after arguing at some substantial length he requested that the matter be posted for 26.2.2018 so that a better counter affidavit in conformity with the earlier orders of the Court could be filed. The order dated 15.2.2018 is as follows: "Heard Sri Raghvendra Kumar Singh, learned Advocate General, assisted by Sri Hari Govind Upadhyaya, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel. After hearing at some substantial length, on the request of learned Advocate General, this petition is listed on 26th February, 2018 to enable the State respondent to file better counter-affidavit in conformity with the earlier orders of this Court indicating each facts and circumstances in detail indicating the reasons as to why the guidelines of the State Govt. for conducting examination in question have not been followed strictly. For filing counter-affidavit, only a week's time is granted to the State-respondent and copy of the said counter-affidavit be provided to the learned counsel for the petitioners of the leading petition by 22nd February, 2018. If copy of the counter-affidavit is provided to the learned counsel for the petitioners Sri Amit Kumar Singh Bhadoriya, he shall file rejoinder-affidavit by 26th February, 2018. While filing counter-affidavit, the State respondent shall file the relevant documents showing as to when the Expert Committee was constituted in the light of G.O. dated 21st August, 2017 and who were members of that committee. As a matter of fact, the complete report of said Committee would be filed before the Court. While filing counter-affidavit, the State respondent shall file the relevant documents showing as to when the Expert Committee was constituted in the light of G.O. dated 21st August, 2017 and who were members of that committee. As a matter of fact, the complete report of said Committee would be filed before the Court. Further, the counter affidavit would clearly explain as to why the questions in respect of 'Unseen Passages' which were to be asked in the 'Language Papers' have not been asked as per the guidelines of the Government Order dated 24.12.2014. In Language -I (Hindi) instead of 15 questions, 5 questions have been asked, whereas in Language-II instead of 15 questions, only 3 questions in Sanskrit and 4 questions in Urdu have been asked. In English, only 10 questions have been asked instead of 15 questions. In Writ Petition No.2293 (S/S) of 2018 this anomaly has been mentioned vide paras-22 and 23. It has been informed by the learned counsel for the petitioners that despite the order being passed by this Court that the authorities concerned shall pass specific order indicating therein that the petitioners before this Court would be permitted to fill up the registration forms if they are found to be eligible for that by 12.02.2018 (vide orders dated 2.2.2018) and by 19.2.2018 (vide order dated 9.2.2018) but no such order has been passed by the authorities concerned. It was expected that the authorities concerned should pass necessary orders in compliance of the orders dated 2.2.2018 and 9.2.2018. It has been informed by the counsel for the parties that the special appeal of the State respondent has been dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court whereby the order of this Court dated 2.2.2018 was challenged, therefore, the authorities concerned must have issued some order indicating therein that the petitioners would be given liberty to fill up the registration forms if they are found eligible for that. Since the learned Advocate General has sought time to file a better counter-affidavit/supplementary counter-affidavit, therefore, it is expected that the learned Advocate General would suggest the competent authorities to conduct the examinations in question only after the writ petitions are finally disposed of. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that they have already concluded their arguments on 02.02.2018 and on 09.02.2018. For rejoinder arguments they would not take much time if State-respondents concludes its arguments. However, the learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that they have already concluded their arguments on 02.02.2018 and on 09.02.2018. For rejoinder arguments they would not take much time if State-respondents concludes its arguments. The interim protection as granted earlier vide orders dated 2.2.2018 and 9.2.2018 shall be extended to the petitioners till the final disposal of this writ petition." 35. The supplementary counter affidavit was filed by the State-respondents on 22.2.2018. 36. Now I shall deal the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners regarding incorrect or ambiguous answers. The learned counsel for the petitioners in leading Writ Petition No. 28222(S/S) of 2017 has submitted aforesaid anomalies in various paragraphs of the writ petition which are being reproduced herein below : "19. That it is submitted that the petitioners have again submitted their representation before the respondent authorities on 17.11.2017 made their objections from the following questions as they have the wrong answers:- S. No. Q. No. Question Booklet Series C 1 16 Who described different types of personality based on glands? 2 18 The tendency of "Feeling of Revolt" is concerned with which of the following ages? 3 26 Brain storming model of teaching is issued to improve which of the following? 4 32 fgUnh Hkk"kk esa fdruh cksfy;kW gS\ 5 123 Which of the following ultra violet rays is more dangers? 6 126 WWF stands for? 7 131 In a food chain of Grassland Ecosystem the top consumers are? 8 146 During the light phase of Photosynthesis......is Oxidized and......is reduced. The two questions in the language Sanskrit have the wrong answers : S. No. Q. No. Question Booklet Series C 1 61 ^^fir`^^ 'kCn dk lEcks/ku ,d opu :i gksxk\ 2 80 ^^nk^^ /kkrq fdl x.k dh gS\ 20. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 16 the following question having following four alternative option are asked: Question No. 16- Who described different types of personality based on glands? (i) Cretsthmer (ii) Jung (iii) Cannon (iv) Spranger Submission- It is submitted that the answer key issued by the respondent no. 3 on 18.10.2017 they have given the correct answer of alternative '(iii)-Cannon' and after obtaining the objection, the respondent no. 3 issued a final answer key and the correct answer has been given in the revised answer sheet as the alternative '(i)-Cretsthmer'. 3 on 18.10.2017 they have given the correct answer of alternative '(iii)-Cannon' and after obtaining the objection, the respondent no. 3 issued a final answer key and the correct answer has been given in the revised answer sheet as the alternative '(i)-Cretsthmer'. It is submitted that the prescribed books issued by the Councils as well as the institution approved by the ISBN, the correct answer shows that 'Cannon' has described the different type of personality based on glands. It is submitted that the submission made herein above it is clear that on one hand the opposite party no. 3 earlier they have found the correct answer is the alternative '(iii)' and in revised answer sheet they have found the correct answer is alternative '(i)' whereas the Books prescribed by the Councils is shown the correct answer is alternative '(iii)'. In such situation it seems that either both the answers are correct or the respondent authorities have given a wrong answer for the said question. In such a situation it is proper that the respondent authorities to give grace marks to the petitioners for the said questions. 21. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 18 the following question having following four alternative option are asked: Question No. 18- The tendency of feeling of revolt is concerned with which of the following ages? (i) Childhood (ii) Infancy (iii) Early Adolescence (iv) Middle Adolescence Submission - It is submitted that the books issued by the councils as well as approved publications by the Councils, the age of adolescence has been prescribed from the age 11-18 years. In such a situation the early adolescence and middle Adolescence both alternatives seems to be correct. In such a situation this question is also comes in the category of wrong questions given in the question paper by the respondent authorities. 22. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 26 the following question having following four alternative option are asked : Question No. 26- Brain storming model of teaching is used to improve which of the following? (i) Understanding (ii) Application (iii) Creativity (iv) Problem solving Submission- It is submitted that the books prescribed by the ISBN as well as the Councils it has been prescribed that the brain storming model of teaching is used in creativity as well as problem solving. (i) Understanding (ii) Application (iii) Creativity (iv) Problem solving Submission- It is submitted that the books prescribed by the ISBN as well as the Councils it has been prescribed that the brain storming model of teaching is used in creativity as well as problem solving. In such a situation both alternatives are to be seen as the correct answer, whereas the respondent no. 3 in their answer key have given the correct answer of alternative '(iv)'. 23. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 32 the following question having following four alternative option are asked: Question no. 32- fganh Hkk"kk esa fdruh cksyh;s gS\ ¼d½ 15 ¼[k½ 25 ¼x½ 18 ¼?k½ 22 Submission - It is submitted that the prescribed books issued by the Councils as well as authorized publications the correct answer is shown 17' and some of the books is shown 18' and in some of the books is shown 19'. In such a situation such type of questions where the Councils are themselves not clear for their answer, such a question cannot be asked in the question paper. 24. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 123 the following question having following four alternative option are asked : Question no. 123- Which of the followign ultraviolet rays is more dangerous? (i) UV-A (ii) UV-B (iii) UV-C (iv) None of the above Submission - It is submitted that the prescribed book issued by the Councils it has been shown that the 'Uv-B' rays are dangerous for persons because they will reach to the person where 'UV-C' is not reached till the end. As such UV-B is the correct answer as per the prescribed books issued by the Councils, whereas in the answer key the alternative '(iii) UV-C' is shown as the correct answer. In such a situation this question also comes under the wrong answer category given by the respondent authorities. 25. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 126 the following question having following four alternative option are asked: Question No. 126- WWF stands for ? In such a situation this question also comes under the wrong answer category given by the respondent authorities. 25. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 126 the following question having following four alternative option are asked: Question No. 126- WWF stands for ? (i) World Wide Fund (ii) World War Fund (iii) World Wildlife Fund (iv) World Watch Fund Submission - it is submitted that the prescribed books issued by the Councils as well as the authorized publishers, the correct answer of the above question is shown as alternative '(i) and (iii)' whereas the respondent no. 3 has given the correct answer in his answer key the alternative '(iii)'. In such a situation where more than one answer seems to be correct in the question, the said alternatives cannot be asked by the respondent authorities. 26. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 131 the following question having following four alternative option are asked : Question No. 131- In a food chain of Grassland Ecosystem, the top consumers are? (i) Herbivorous (ii) Carnivorous (iii) Bactria (iv) Either Carnivorous or Herbivorous Submission - It is submitted that the prescribed books issued by the Councils the correct answer shows the alternative '(iii) Bacteria' whereas in the revised answer key the correct answer given by the respondent no. 3 is alternative '(iii-Carnivorous'. In such a situation the answer given by the opposite party no. 3 seems not to be correct. 27. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 146 the following question having following four alternative option are asked : Question no. 146- During the light phase of Photosynthesis, .............is Oxidized and .............is reduced? (i) Water, NADP (ii) NADPH2, CO2 (iii) CO2, Water (iv) CO2, NADPH2 Submission - It is submitted that the SCERT has issued a guideline as well as the books till Class V, these formations has not been prescribed in the books and also the guidelines issued by the respondent authorities it has been prescribed the questions will be asked in the books prescribed till Class V. The said question is not prescribed in the books circulated by the Councils till Class V students. In such a situation the said question is being asked by the respondent authorities of a high level books i.e. beyond the prescribed syllabus by the respondent authorities. 28. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 61 (In Sanskrit Language) the following question having following four alternative option are asked: Question No. 61 (In Sanskrit Language)- ¼d½ gs fir` ¼[k½ gs firk ¼x½ gs fir% ¼?k½ gs fi=% Submission - It is submitted that the prescribed book issued by the Councils as well as approved publications by ISBN the correct answer is shown as " gs fir%!". The said correct answer has not been given by the respondent authorities in either of the alternatives as such this question in the Sanskrit language has been given wrong answer. As such the petitioners who opted the Sanskrit language in the question paper may be awarded one grace mark against the said question. 29. That it is submitted that in the 'C' series paper in the question no. 80 the following question having following four alternative options are asked : Question No. 80 (In Sanskrit Language)- ^^nk^^ /kkrq fdl x.k dh gS\ ¼d½ Hokfnx.k ¼[k½ vnkfnx.k ¼x½ rukfnx.k ¼?k½ tqgksO;kfnx.k Submission - It is submitted that the prescribed books issued by the Councils as well as the authorized publishers, the correct answer of the above question is shown as alternative '(i), (ii) and (iv)' whereas the respondent no. 3 has given the correct answer in his answer key the alternative '(iv)'. In such a situation where more than one answer seems to be correct in the question, the said answer cannot be asked by the respondent authorities. 30. That it is further submitted that as per the guidelines issued by the respondent authorities the Part-V consists from the subject of Environmental Studies. In the said part there are four questions which has no relevance with the subject of Environmental Studies were asked in the question paper. The petitioners have made their objections that the following questions are out of syllabus as per the syllabus prescribed by the respondent authorities in the guideline books, so that either these questions are deleted from the question papers or by giving grace marks against these questions to all the petitioners. 32. The petitioners have made their objections that the following questions are out of syllabus as per the syllabus prescribed by the respondent authorities in the guideline books, so that either these questions are deleted from the question papers or by giving grace marks against these questions to all the petitioners. 32. That it is further submitted that following questions are also seems to be wrong in the question paper and petitioners make a submission to this Hon'ble Court that the petitioners' objections shall be considered by the High Level Expert Committee at the time opportunity of hearing provided by the Hon'ble Court:- S. No. Q.No. Question Booklet Series C 1 1 Which of the following is not the cause of plateau of learning? 2 6 Which of the following is a primary law of physical development? 3 7 Which of the following is not the theory of development? 4 39 fuEufyf[kr esa ls dkSu lh O;kdj.k vkSj orZuh ls 'kq) Hkk"kk dgykrh gS\ 5 60 vka[k dh fdjfdjh gksuk dk vFkZ gS\ 6 79 ^^{k** feydj cuk gS\ ¼bu ikVZ&3 laLd`r½ 7 86 U;ue] esa iz;qDr izd`fr ,oa izR;; gS\ ¼bu ikVZ&3 laLd`r½ . The aforesaid paragraphs of the writ petition have been replied by Dr. Sutta Singh who is Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, Allahabad by filing counter affidavit. The relevant paragraph is para no. 9 of the counter affidavit which is being reproduced herein below : "9. That option no. 3 of question no. 16 of series 'C' was correct in the answer sheet dated 18.10.2017 published by the competent authority. It is pertinent to mention here that regarding question no. 16, in lieu of option no. 3 option no. 1 of series 'C' was chosen to be the right answer by the subject expert. Therefore, in the revised list published on November 6, 2017, the answer number 16 was substituted with option number 1 instead of option no. 3." 38. It is to be noted that this reply of the Examination Regulatory Authority may not be said to be proper reply. She has not given any reply in respect of the four questions which were out of syllabus. Since the standard of the questions should be based on the book at the level up to the Vth standard, therefore, no question should be asked on the higher standard. She has not given any reply in respect of the four questions which were out of syllabus. Since the standard of the questions should be based on the book at the level up to the Vth standard, therefore, no question should be asked on the higher standard. Further, in the paper of Environmental Studies, the question from the Constitution / international affairs should not have been asked. Questions no. 121, 133, 140 and 150 in Environmental Studies are therefore questions out of syllabus. 39. During the course of the argument the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners could not be disputed properly, inasmuch as, the material supplied by the State-respondents does not establish that the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioners, as aforesaid, are misconceived. To the contrary, it appears that there is apparent ambiguity in some of the questions and there are some questions which are having wrong / ambiguous answers and also there are some questions which appear to be out of syllabus. 40. Not only the above, the State-respondents could not demonstrate as to when the expert committee was constituted in the light of the Government Order dated 21.8.2017; who were the members of that committee; what were the recommendations of the expert committee; what was the basis of their subjective satisfaction, etc. However, one confidential file was produced before the Court on 28.2.2018 but the perusal thereof did not reveal that any expert committee was constituted strictly in accordance with law, in the light of the Government Order dated 21.8.2017 and what was the basis of their subjective satisfaction while dealing with the objections of incumbents. The State-respondents have submitted, vide para 17 of the supplementary counter affidavit filed on 22.2.2018 that only four changes were made while disposing of the objections of the candidates and those candidates were awarded one mark for each changes. It has also been submitted in para 19 of supplementary counter affidavit that the expert committee was constituted by the department on the confidential note-sheet dated 15.11.2017. It has further been indicated vide para nos. 26 and 28 of the supplementary counter affidavit that on account of paper-setter the questions in language could not be asked properly and the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority has no right to examine the question-papers. It has further been indicated vide para nos. 26 and 28 of the supplementary counter affidavit that on account of paper-setter the questions in language could not be asked properly and the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority has no right to examine the question-papers. While disputing the aforesaid submissions of the State-respondents, more particularly, of Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, the learned counsel for the petitioners has drawn attention of this Court towards the guidelines issued by the State Government for conducting the examination in question wherein para 1(4) thereof categorically says that the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority is solely responsible for conducting the examination in question as per the guidelines. Therefore, the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority cannot legally say that on account of paper-setter the questions in language could not be asked properly. 41. Paragraphs no. 19, 26 and 28 of the short counter affidavit are being reproduced herein below : "19. That after considering the above mentioned representation, the concerned subject experts committee was again constituted by a Departmental Confidential Note sheet dated 15th November, to revisit the subject Bal Vikas Evam Shikshan Vidhi, Hindi, Sanskrit, Environmental Studies and particularly the questions which were raised by the candidates. The original copy of the note-sheet dated 15th November, 2017 will be presented before this Hon'ble Court at the time of hearing for proper adjudication of the present case. 26. That the contention of the petitioner is that according to the notification dated 24th December, 2014 regarding the exam and guidelines issued, the authority did not ask as many questions as should have been asked from the unseen passage of subject Hindi, Urdu, Sanskrit and English in the examination. Therefore, it is submitted that the concerned authority had authorized the paper setters to set the paper for each subject, and provided them the guidelines and syllabus issued by the Government Order notification dated 24.12.2014. It is submitted that five members (i.e. paper setter) individually prepared 30 questions from each subject and handed over the questions in a sealed envelope to the examination authority, because no one is authorized to open it or see it. The same paper in packed envelope was presented before the Moderator in CCTV camera room and the moderator selects 30 questions for each subject presented by the paper setters. The same paper in packed envelope was presented before the Moderator in CCTV camera room and the moderator selects 30 questions for each subject presented by the paper setters. After finalizing the questions, they again seal the questions and handed over the questions to the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority. 28. That it is pertinent to mention here that Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority has no right to see or examine the question paper. The Secretary does not know how many questions from sub-section regarding the language papers has been asked. The Secretary hands over the guidelines and all the norms to the experts of the paper setters only. It is their job to set the papers. The Secretary never sees or examine how many questions from sub-sections have been asked by the paper-setter / Moderator. All necessary precautions are taken in order to maintain the secrecy of the procedure of paper setting by the concerned authority. 42. In Writ Petition No. 2293(S/S) of 2018 : Ram Saran Maurya vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & others the aforesaid anomaly has been categorically enumerated in paragraphs no. 22,23 and 24 which are being reproduced herein below : "22. That as per Appendix-II of the aforesaid Guidelines issued and adopted as per Government Order dated 24.12.2014 as contained in Annexure no. 4 to the writ petition, the Paper-I (Primary Level) Part-II Language- d) Hkk"kk cks/kxE;rk i.e. Language Understandability stipulates that 15 questions shall be based on two unseen passages - one shall be Prose or Drama and other shall be of Poetry, but when petitioners appeared in the examination after getting themselves prepared as per aforesaid syllabus they found that the question paper of all the 4 series did not contain two unseen passages rather only one unseen passage of Prose was there and only five questions were there which were based on aforesaid unseen passage. 23. 23. That similar anomaly related to syllabus was there in respect of Language-II Part of the Question Paper and as per Appendix-II of the Guidelines issued and adopted as per Government Order dated 24.12.2014 as contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, Paper-1 (Primary Level) Part-III LANGUAGE-II- d) Hkk"kk cks/kxE;rk i.e. Understandability stipulates that 15 questions shall be based on two unseen passages of Prose, but when petitioners appeared in the examination after getting themselves prepared as per aforesaid syllabus they found that the question paper of all the 4 series did not contain two unseen passages of Prose rather only one unseen passage was there and total questions based on aforesaid unseen passages were not there as per the syllabus. Such anomaly relating to syllabus in the question papers of impugned examination for different question paper series may be summarized by following chart :- ANOMALY OF SYLLABUS RELATING TO LANGUAGE-1 (HINDI) Question Booklet Series Question Numbers Total Questions Asked Questions to be asked as per G.O. dated 24.12.2014 A 56 to 60 05 15 B 31 to 35 05 15 C 41 to 45 05 15 D 51 to 55 05 15 ANOMALY OF SYLLABUS RELATING TO LANGUAGE -II (OPTIONAL SUBJECTS-ENGLISH, SANSKRIT, URDU) Question Booklet Series Question Numbers Total Questions Asked (E)(S)(U) Questions to be asked as per G.O. dated 24.12.2014 English Sanskrit Urdu A 61 to 70 87 to 89 65 to 68 10/03/04 15 B 71 to 80 61 to 63 75 to 78 10/03/04 15 C 81 to 90 71 to 73 80 to 83 10/03/04 15 D 61 to 50 86 to 90 82 to 84 84 to 87 10/03/04 15 24. That it is also relevant to mention here that as per Appendix-II of the aforesaid Guidelines issued and adopted as per Government Order dated 24.12.2014 as contained in Annexure No. 4 to the writ petition, the Paper-1 (Primary Level) Part-V Environmental Studies, provides that there shall be 30 questions on different matters relating to environmental studies but at the time when petitioners appeared in the examination in question as they found that under the aforesaid heading 5 different questions were there in different series of question papers which do not relate in any manner with the environment or environmental studies rather they may be termed as questions relating to politics / political science / international politics. So as to substantiate the aforesaid facts, five such questions asked in the examination impugned, not from the syllabus in different question booklet series may be summarized through following chart :- Sr. No. Questions Asked Question Booklet Series Question No. 1. Fundamental duties are adopted from the constitution of which country? A B C D 125 133 140 147 2. The Head Office of International Court of Justice is situated in? A B C D 135 143 150 127 3. The Constituent Assembly adopted our National Anthem on? A B C D 136 144 121 128 4. Where is Pushkar Fair held? A B C D 137 145 122 129 5. The number of permanent members of U.N. Security Council is? A B C D 148 126 133 140 43. However, no counter affidavit has been filed in Writ Petition No. 2293 (S/S) of 2018 but para 26 and 28 of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 22.2.2018 clarify the position. 44. Learned counsel for the petitioners have filed the rejoinder affidavit and supplementary rejoinder affidavit reiterating the contents of writ petition and rejoinder affidavit. 45. Sri Himanshu Raghav, learned counsel has filed an application for impleadment. He has been permitted by the Court to place his submissions as an intervenor. He has precisely submitted that the examination in question may not be quashed and the unsuccessful candidates concerned should not be awarded grace marks as it would affect the entire result including the prospects of successful candidates. 46. Learned counsel for the petitioners have placed reliance on judgments of this Court and also of the Hon'ble Apex Court so as to strengthen their aforesaid arguments. 47. This Court in the case of Sunil Kumar Singh Vs. State of U.P. reported in 2017 UPLBEC (2) 1048 was pleased to dispose of the writ petition finally in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Rakesh Kumar (supra). The relevant paras of the aforesaid judgment is paragraphs no. 9,12 and 70 which are being reproduced as under : "9. Before entering into the merits of the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners in regard to the faulty answer keys, we propose to first deal with the contention of the respondents regarding the scope of judicial review in such matters. 9,12 and 70 which are being reproduced as under : "9. Before entering into the merits of the submissions advanced by learned Counsel for the petitioners in regard to the faulty answer keys, we propose to first deal with the contention of the respondents regarding the scope of judicial review in such matters. A three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University and others v. Samir Gupta and others, (1983) 4 SCC309, has had the occasion to consider specifically the same issue: 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? In the case before the Supreme Court, the questions were multiple choice objective type and the candidates were \required to exercise choice in respect of one correct answer out of the four alternatives, as in the case at hand. The students contended before the Supreme Court that the key answers provided by the examiner in respect of three questions, one each in Chemistry, Zoology and Botany were incorrect. The University opposed the plea contending that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of key answers. The Supreme Court, repelling the contention, held as under:- 16. Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. 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 rationalisation. 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. 17. 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. 17. Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Text for admission to the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in thse text-books. Those text-books support the case of teh students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with answer which is demonstrated to be wrong." The Supreme Court thereafter proceeded to examine the correctness of the key answers on the basis of the standard text books and concluded by holding that the key answers to some of the questions were incorrect. Accordingly, the direction issued by the High Court for the re-assessment of certain questions and for granting admission to the students to M.B.B.S. course based on such re-assessment was upheld. 12. In Rajesh Kumar and another v. State of Bihar and others, (2013) 4 SCC 690 , the Supreme Court was considering the validity of a selection made by Bihar State Staff Selection Commission, on the basis of a written objective type examination. The evaluation of the answer scripts was subject matter of challenge at the instance of unsuccessful candidates. The High Court referred the model answer key to a body of experts, which found two questions to be wrongly framed, while two others were found to have been repeated. One of the questions was also found to be defective as the choices in the answer key were printed only partially. The high Court, having noticed that the model answers were wrong, quashed the entire selection and directed for conducting a fresh examination. One of the questions was also found to be defective as the choices in the answer key were printed only partially. The high Court, having noticed that the model answers were wrong, quashed the entire selection and directed for conducting a fresh examination. The Supreme Court approved the decision of the High Court in so far as it held that the selection made on the basis of incorrect model answer key is not sustainable, but moulded the relief by directing preparation of final merit list on the basis of correct answer key and in permitting the candidates who had already been appointed to continue in service subject to the rider that they shall figure at the bottom fo the list of the candidates who would be selected on the basis of correct answer key. 70. It has been brought to our notice that though the main written examination has been held but its result has not been declared so far. In view of the above, following the course adopted by the Supreme Court in the case of Rakesh Kumar (supra), we dispose of the writ petitions with the following directions : (a) The Commission shall re-evaluate the answer scripts fo the preliminary examination of all the candidates by (i) deleting questions No. 25,66 and 92; and (ii) giving full marks for question No. 44 to candidates who have exercised option (b) or (c). (b) The candidates who are found to have qualified the preliminary examination as a result of re-evaluation, shall become entitled to appear in the main written examination. In respect of such candidates, the Commission will hold the main written examination at the earliest possible. (c) The result of the main written examination already held, if not declared so far, shall not be declared till such time the main written examination of the candidates declared qualified as a result of dir4ection issued by this Court is declared. In case the result of the main written examination already held is declared in the meantime, further exercise in regard to such candidates shall not be held until the holding of the examination of the remaining candidates as a result of directions being issued by this Court. In case the result of the main written examination already held is declared in the meantime, further exercise in regard to such candidates shall not be held until the holding of the examination of the remaining candidates as a result of directions being issued by this Court. (d) The Commission shall thereafter hold interview from the merit list drawn on the basis of the result of both the main written examinations i.e. one held previously and the other that would be held in pursuance of the directions given herein. (e) Some of the candidates who have appeared in the main written examination may fail to qualify preliminary examination as a result of re-evaluation. The candidature of such candidates shall be cancelled and they shall not be entitled to participate any further in the selection process." 48. In the case of Lalit Mohan Singh vs. State of U.P. and others in Writ -A No. 71563 of 2011 and other connected matters this Court was pleased to dispose of the said writ petition. The relevant paragraphs of the said judgments are para nos. 28 and 29, which are being reproduced herein below : "28. So far as other aspects are concerned, i.e., alleged mistakes committed in assessment of copies, duplicate roll number etc., I do not find it expedient and appropriate to make any intervention at this stage, since Sri Neeraj Upadhyay, learned Standing Counsel has stated at the Bar that Board shall look into such grievances of candidates if appropriate application is submitted to the Board within a prescribed time as deemed proper by this Court, and the matter shall be examined and decided at the level of the Board. 29. In the facts and circumstances, in view of discussion made above, I dispose of these writ petitions with the following directions: (I) Question No. 121, Series 'B' J.L.E. contain all wrong options and, therefore, it shall be treated a wrong question. Consequently the marks in respect of Question no. 121, Series 'B', J.L.E. shall be allotted to all candidates who have appeared in the concerned test. This direction shall simultaneously apply to corresponding question in remaining Series namely, 'A', 'C' and 'D' in J.L.E. (II) In respect of Question no. 125, Series 'B' JLE, the candidates answering any of the options i.e., 'B' or 'C' shall be awarded marks. 121, Series 'B', J.L.E. shall be allotted to all candidates who have appeared in the concerned test. This direction shall simultaneously apply to corresponding question in remaining Series namely, 'A', 'C' and 'D' in J.L.E. (II) In respect of Question no. 125, Series 'B' JLE, the candidates answering any of the options i.e., 'B' or 'C' shall be awarded marks. This direction shall simultaneously apply to corresponding question in remaining Series namely, 'A','C' and 'D' in J.L.E. (III) In respect of Question No. 142, Series 'B' JLE, the candidates who have answered any of the options i.e., 'A' or 'D' shall be awarded marks. This direction shall simultaneously apply to corresponding question in remaining Series namely, 'A', 'C' and 'D' in J.L.E. (IV) Revised opinion of the Board with respect to Questions shown in the charts in para 5 above ( other than asterisk marked) shall not affect adversely the result of the candidates already declared successful merely for the reason of change of opinion of the Board vis a vis correct option. (V) All the candidates who have attempted these questions and have answered by referring to one of the two options, namely, the one which was correct as per initial Model Key Answer or that which is now correct as per the revised opinion, the candidates in both the events shall be awarded marks and their result shall be prepared accordingly. (VI) The Board shall publish a notice at least in four newspapers of different languages having wide circulation at the State level informing all concerned that in case any candidate has any grievance regarding UPTET Examination, 2011, about assessment etc., he may register his complaint by submitting application along with process fee of Rs. 100/- per application ( by cash or by demand draft) within 15 days from the date of publication in the newspapers. (VII) The Board shall entertain all applications of the candidates raising their grievance regarding assessment etc. and shall look into their grievance and take a decision thereon within a week from the date of receipt of such application. Such decision shall be communicated to the candidate concerned within a week thereafter either by placing information on internet or on mail address given by the candidate or by registered post. and shall look into their grievance and take a decision thereon within a week from the date of receipt of such application. Such decision shall be communicated to the candidate concerned within a week thereafter either by placing information on internet or on mail address given by the candidate or by registered post. (VIII) The candidates who are already declared successful, their result shall not be affected to their prejudice but in case in view of the directions given above regarding certain questions, if their marks are to be increased, the same shall be given due credit. (IX) The revised result as a consequence of compliance of above directions shall be uploaded on internet and shall be given due publicity at the earliest. (X) No costs." 49. In the case of Manish Ujjawal and others vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University and others reported in 2005 (13) Supreme Court Cases 744 the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to allow the appeal with cost of Rs. 1 lac imposed on the University. The relevant paragraphs of the aforesaid judgments is para no. 10 which is being quoted herein below : "The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that "it cannot be said with certainty that answers to the six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect". As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or intervenors or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. For the present, we say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reason. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student as a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student as a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers; the second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in educational matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, the benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answers is adopted by the persons concerned, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers, but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case." 50. In the case of Rajesh Kumar and others vs. State of Bihar and others reported in 2013(4) Supreme Court Cases 690 the Hon'ble Apex Court was pleased to allow the appeal. The relevant paras are 21 and 22 which are as under: "21. There is considerable merit in the submissions 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. 22. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that: 22.1. 22. In the result, we allow these appeals, set aside the order passed by the High Court and direct that: 22.1. Answer scripts of candidates appearing in 'A' series of competition examination held pursuant to Advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 shall be got re-evaluated on the basis of a correct key prepared on the basis of the report of Dr. (Prof.) C.N. Sinha and Prof. K.S.P. Singh and the observations made in the body of this order and a fresh merit list drawn up on that basis. 22.2. Candidates who figure in the merit list but have not been appointed shall be offered appointments in their favour. Such candidates would earn their seniority from the date the appellants were first appointed in accordance with their merit position but without any back wages or other benefit whatsoever. 22.3. In case the writ petitioners, Respondents 6 to 18 also figure in the merit list after re-evaluation of the answer scripts, their appointments shall relate back to the date when the appellants were first appointed with continuity of service to them for purpose of seniority but without any back wages or other incidental benefits. 22.4. Such of the appellants as do not make the grade after re-evaluation shall not be ousted from service, but shall figure at the bottom of the list of selected candidates based on the first selection in terms of Advertisement No. 1406 of 2006 and the second selection held pursuant to Advertisement No. 1906 of 2006. 22.5. The needful shall be done by the respondents, State and the Staff Selection Commission expeditiously but not later than three months from the date a copy of this order is made available to them." 51. The learned counsel for the petitioners has cited the judgments of Hon'ble High Court at Patna in re: Mohd. Anwar Ahmad and others vs. State of Bihar and others, leading Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 21945 of 2014 and other connected matters which was decided by the Single Judge of High Court at Patna vide order dated 6.5.2015 and the said order of the learned Single Judge at High Court of Patna has been upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court at Patna vide judgment and order dated 31.8.2015 passed in Letters Patent Appeal No. 1287 of 2015 and other connected appeals. When the Special Leave to Appeal (C) bearing No. 26402 of 2015 was filed before the Hon'ble Apex Court challenging the order dated 31.8.2015, the said appeal was dismissed by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.9.2015. 52. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the aforesaid case is identical to the case at hand, therefore, this bunch of writ petitions may be disposed of in the light of the aforesaid orders of the High Court at Patna which has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court. 53. In the aforesaid case also the bunch of writ petitions were filed after publication of result by Bihar School Examination Board of Bihar Primary, Urdu & Bangla (Special) Teachers Eligibility Test on the more or less same grounds on which this bunch of writ petition has been filed. Paras no. 3 and 4 of the aforesaid judgment provides background of the issue. Paragraphs no. 3 and 4 of the judgment are being reproduced herein below: "3. After the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act (RTE) 2009 was notified, the National Council for Teachers Education issued guidelines for conducting Teachers Eligibility Test and made it mandatory. In furtherance to the guidelines and also to ensure implementation thereof, the Department of Education, Government of Bihar, notified a set of rules on 3.4.2012. The rule in question is known as Bihar Panchayat Primary Teachers (Employment and Service Conditions) Rules, 2012. This rule also made passing of TET Examination by all candidates, who wanted to be appointed as teachers. 4. In view of the above statutory requirement, Bihar School Examination Board was given the responsibility of conducting the TET Examination for Urdu and Bangla Teachers and an advertisement was issued in terms of Annexure -1. Large number of candidates running into tens of thousands responded. The examination was held on 1.10.2013. After the examination got over, many a candidates raised objections about the correctness of either the question or the answer provided by the Examination Board. In fact, to be fair to Bihar School Examination Board, they made the question paper and the model answer available on the Website and the objections were invited by 21.10.2013." 54. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment of learned Single Judge of Patna High Court finds place in para 23 to 29 of the judgment which are as under: "23. The operative portion of the aforesaid judgment of learned Single Judge of Patna High Court finds place in para 23 to 29 of the judgment which are as under: "23. The Court, therefore, comes to a considered opinion that the only way to restore confidence and faith in the examination so held by the Examination Board would be to delete as many questions which are said to be 10 in Paper -I and 13 in Paper-II and evaluate the answer sheet of all the candidates with reduced number of correct questions. The publication of result after the above exercise will throw up the correct merit position of all the candidates with advantage or disadvantage to none, especially when it has already been noticed that this test also will have a bearing on the final merit as weightage is required to be given on the basis of performance in TET examination. 24. The stand of the learned senior counsel representing the Examination Board and the State is neither appreciated nor it is logical. Therefore, they are fit to be rejected. 25. There was an occasion for this Court to comment in the manner objections were readily accepted and the way so-called expert committee but that would unnecessarily divert and complicate the issue. 26. The Court directs the Examination Board to make a fresh evaluation of all the answer sheets of the candidates by deleting 10 questions in Paper-I and 13 questions in Paper-II. They shall declare the results on the basis of the above direction. Based on the said declaration, further exercise for appointment on the post of teachers for Urdu and Bangla will be carried out. It will be in the interest of the State and the candidates that the matter is expedited. 27. The learned senior counsel for the Examination Board harped on the fact that another Coordinating Bench has already given approval to the modality adopted earlier in terms of Annexure -E. 28. The Court would have appreciated the above fact provided the Examination Board or the State Government stuck to a particular mode as well as declared the result without setting up committees after committees. The Court would have appreciated the above fact provided the Examination Board or the State Government stuck to a particular mode as well as declared the result without setting up committees after committees. Since they have not been consistent and this has led to a large number of litigations and filing of writ applications, this Court has no option but to opine as above to instill confidence in the candidates and the fairness in the conduct of examination. 29. All the writ applications with the diverse kind of prayers, therefore, are disposed of with the above directive with regard to declaration of results. In view of the above, the earlier results declared by the Examination Board will be of no avail and will be treated to have been annulled. The fresh result will be declared on the basis of deleted questions. The relief to other candidates, who wanted a direction for appointment on the basis of earlier result, therefore, is refused." 55. The Division Bench of the High Court at Patna dismissed the special appeal of the State respondents upholding the order of Single Judge. Paragraphs no. 30,31,36,37,38,39 and 40 of the aforesaid judgments are relevant which are being reproduced herein below: "30. In our opinion, it is well within the jurisdiction of this Court, exercising power of judicial review, to assess whether the action of the executive passes the test of reasonableness, fairness in action and whether the action discriminates none. This Court, while exercising such power, has a duty to see to it that in the matter of public employment, no person is disadvantaged or no person is given undue advantage, because of an executive policy, which is unfair and / or arbitrary. The well-recognized principle, that this Court should not substitute its own opinion in place of the opinion of an expert body, has no application in the present facts of the case as learned Single Judge, in the order under appeal, has not gone into the correctness of the opinion of the experts as to whether framing of questions were correct or not. 31. 31. As has been mentioned in the very opening paragraph of the present judgement, the cardinal issue, involved in the present appeals, is as to what the recruiting agency or any other body, holding multiple-choice question test, should do, in all fairness, if some of the questions, so framed, are found to be incorrect. 36. In our considered view, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that in a situation such as the present one, wrongly framed questions should be deleted and the answer sheets should be re-evaluated on the basis of remaining questions. The view taken by learned Single Judge, is not only reasonable and rational view, it also ensures fair and equal treatment to all candidates, who participate in such a test, there being no disadvantage to any individual or undue advantage to the other. We do not find any infirmity in the order under appeal passed by learned Single Judge. 37. We do not think that discrepancies, in holding the eligibility test in question, as noted above, are such that the entire exercise, done by the Board, is required to be annulled. There is no allegation of any malpractice nor any irregularity of such nature warranting scrapping of the entire exercise. 38. Before we part with the present judgment, we consider it appropriate to issue certain directives to be followed in future. It would have been ideal situation that utmost care is taken, while setting multiple choice questions leaving no scope of uncertainty in assessing individual merits of the test takers. However, there can be a situation, where despite due care taken, mistakes may occur in preparing such questions, because of human error. This Court is of the view that the agencies / authorities, responsible for setting such questions, should carry out the exercise with utmost care as even a small flaw leads to series of litigations, creates lot of confusion and, at times, puts question mark on the sanctity of selection process itself. 39. This Court is of the view that the agencies / authorities, responsible for setting such questions, should carry out the exercise with utmost care as even a small flaw leads to series of litigations, creates lot of confusion and, at times, puts question mark on the sanctity of selection process itself. 39. Keeping in mind that there has been numerous instances, where the questions have been found to be incorrect, giving rise to several litigations, we are compelled to issue general directions to the such statutory bodies or other agencies holding tests based on multiple-choice questions for the purpose of appointment to various posts under the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or for the purpose of admission to various institutions managed or controlled by the State. 40. Having considered the matters in its entirety and in the interest of justice, we therefore, direct as follows:- (a) Immediately after a multiple choice question test is held, it shall be obligatory for the Committee or the Body, which conducts such a test, to undertake an exercise, before evaluating the answer-sheets, to ascertain whether the questions were correctly framed having definite answers. In case any objections are invited from the candidates and such objections are received, they must be looked into by a body of the experts, who would not only be required to ascertain whether the questions were correctly framed or not, but they would also be required to examine as to whether the model answers, prepared by the question-setter, are correct or not, for the purpose of correct evaluation of answer-sheets; (b) If the structure of a question is found to be incorrect or if the option suggested is found to be incorrect or if there is any printing mistake of such a nature that the correct answer cannot be ascertained or more than one option is found to be correct, such a question must be rejected and should not be allowed to be evaluated; (c) If, after publication of result, despite due care, it is found that the model key answer / answers suggested was / were incorrect, leading to wrong evaluation, remedial measures must be taken and answer-sheets must be re-evaluated with correct model answers." 56. Since the judgment of the Division Bench of Patna High Court dated 31.8.2015 has been upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court vide order dated 21.9.2015, therefore, the aforesaid judgment of Patna High Court has become law of the land. Not only the above, the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case of Patna High Court are similar to the case at hand. Further, the aforesaid judgment of the High Court at Patna which was upheld by the Hon'ble Apex Court has not been referred in re: Ranvijay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 as the judgment of Ranvijay Singh (supra) has been cited by the learned Advocate General. 57. The learned Advocate General has submitted that the instant writ petition is not maintainable for the reason that the petitioners of the writ petition, more particularly of the leading writ petition, have not raised their respective objections, therefore, they cannot challenged the examination in question. On the basis of the supplementary counter affidavit dated 26.02.2018, the learned Advocate General has submitted that the petitioners have not submitted their respective objections. However, learned counsel for the petitioners has filed the supplementary rejoinder affidavit on 27.02.2018 denying the aforesaid contention of the State-respondents submitting that the petitioners have very well filed their respective objections strictly as per requirement enclosing therewith the photocopy of the E.Mail whereby the objection was filed. 58. It has further been submitted by the learned Advocate General that in view of the settled provisions of law by the Apex Court, the candidates, who appeared in the examination and became unsuccessful, shall have no right to assail the outcome of the examination. 59. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the authority concerned has not followed the procedure and guidelines issued by the NCTE while conducting examination in question. Therefore, they have filed the writ petitions after the examination of TET-2017. 60. It is settled provision of law that a thing should be done in the manner provided by the Act and statute as held in 2003 SCC Vol.2 page 111: Bhavnagar University vs. Palitana Sugar Mill (P) Limited and others: 2001 : Vol. 1 SCC 482; Dr. Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others and 1995 Vol. 1 SCC 156; State of Mizoram vs. Biakchhawna. 61. 1 SCC 482; Dr. Rajinder Singh vs. State of Punjab and others and 1995 Vol. 1 SCC 156; State of Mizoram vs. Biakchhawna. 61. Thus, in case while proceeding ahead with the selection, the procedure provided by the relevant rules, regulations and orders are not followed, then the Courts have got jurisdiction to interfere under the extraordinary power of Article 226 of the Constitution of India to judicially review the conduct of the examining body to the extent it relates to post advertisement issues. 62. Apart from above, it is also settled provisions of law that the criteria notified through the advertisement or Government Orders at the time of initiation of examination should be adhered to and not be flouted for any reason whatsoever. In case the authorities want to change or modify the criteria of a selection, then the vacancies should be re-advertised and denovo selection should be held. The selection process must complete in accordance with the statutory provisions existing at the time of advertisement, coupled with the issuance of the original circular relating to the holding of examination. No change can be made in the selection procedure after advertisement of vacancies as held in 2001 Vol. 10 SCC 51: Maharashtra S.R.T.C. vs. Rajendra Babu; 1990 Vol. 3 SCC 157: N.D. Devi Katti vs. Karnataka P.H.C.; and 1990 Vol. 2 SCC 669; P. Mahendra vs. State of Karnataka. 63. In view of the above, since the grievance raised by the petitioners' counsel that the procedure prescribed by law existing at the time of initiation of selection was not followed during the course of examination, the bunch of present writ petitions are maintainable. 64. Learned Advocate General has also submitted that the guidelines issued by the NCTE for conducting the TET, 2017 are not statutory in nature and, therefore, it may not be said to be mandatory and enforceable by this Court. 65. Admittedly, the guidelines issued by the NCTE are adopted by the State Government through its own Government Order in regard to syllabus, structure, contents and design of the question papers, therefore, it may not legally be said that the guidelines are not mandatory in nature. 65. Admittedly, the guidelines issued by the NCTE are adopted by the State Government through its own Government Order in regard to syllabus, structure, contents and design of the question papers, therefore, it may not legally be said that the guidelines are not mandatory in nature. Further, NCTE have been constituted and established by the National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 with a view to achieve planed and co-ordinate development for Teacher Education System throughout the country and for the Regulation and Proper Maintenance of the norms and standards. Section 12 and 12-A provides power upon the NCTC to frame regulations apply to all matters related to Teacher Education Programme covering norms, standers and procedures and in view of the law laid down by the Full Bench of this Hon'ble Court and by the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Shiv Kumar Sharma & others vs. State of U.P. & others 2013 (6) ADJ 310 (FB), State of Maharashtra vs. Sant Dayaneshwar Shikshan Shastra Mahavidhyalaya and others (2006) 9, SCC 1, Anand Kumar Yadav and others vs. Unionof India & others 2015 (33) LCD, 3084, State of U.P. vs. Anand Kumar Yadav 2017 SCC, On-line (SC) 792 and State of U.P. vs. Shiv Kumar Pathak AIR 2017 SC 3612 . Section 12-A of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 is being reproduced here-in-below:- "12-A. Power of Council to determine minimum standards of education of school teachers. Section 12-A of the National Council for Teacher Education Act, 1993 is being reproduced here-in-below:- "12-A. Power of Council to determine minimum standards of education of school teachers. For the purpose of maintaining standards of education in schools, the Council may, by regulations, determine the qualifications of persons for being recruited as teachers in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or college, by whatever name called, established, run, aided or recognized by the Central Government or a State Government or a local or other authority; Provided that nothing in this section shall adversely affect the continuance of any person recruited in any pre-primary, primary, upper primary, secondary, senior secondary or intermediate school or colleges, under any rule, regulation or order made by the Central Government, a State Government, a local or other authority, immediately before the commencement of the National Council for Teacher Education (Amendment) Act, 2011 solely on the ground of non-fulfilment of such qualifications as may be specified by the Council; Provided further that the minimum qualifications of a teacher referred to in the first proviso shall be acquired within the period specified in this Act or under the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (35 of 2009)." 66. In an identical circumstances, the State Government had given its undertaking that the guidelines of NCTE shall be followed in future. The aforesaid undertaking was recorded by the Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court vide order dated 07.09.2017 passed in Writ Petition No.2530 (M/B) of 2014; Nutan Thakur vs. State of U.P. & others. The order dated 07.09.2017 read as under:- "Heard Mrs. Nutan Thakur, petitioner, in person, Mr Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no.4. The order dated 07.09.2017 read as under:- "Heard Mrs. Nutan Thakur, petitioner, in person, Mr Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State and Mr Sudhanshu Chauhan, learned counsel for respondent no.4. The main prayer in the writ petition, reads thus: "(a) kindly issue an appropriate writ directing the concerned respondents to immediately quash all the examinations being presently in process for Uttar Pradesh Teacher's Eligibility Test (UP-TET, for short) for language teachers for primary and upper-primary schools for the year-2014 being conducted in flagrant and direct violation of the mandatory requirements prescribed by the National Council for Teacher Education (NCTE, for short) and to accordingly direct the concerned respondents to conduct these UP-TET tests for 2014 and subsequent years only as per all the mandatory requirements prescribed by NCTE, including that provided in the notification dated 11/02/2011 titled "Guidelines for conducting Teacher Eligibility Test (TET)" This writ petition was filed on 25.3.2014. When the notices were issued, no interim order of whatsoever nature was passed by this Court, nor any observation, making appointments of language teachers would be subject to out come of the writ petition, was sought by the petitioner. In view thereof, we read the aforesaid prayer carefully, and asked learned counsel for the respondents, whether the selection process is complete which commenced with the examinations for the year 2014. Mr Shailendra Singh Chauhan, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State, on instructions, submits that the selection got over long back and more than 6000 teachers have been appointed in pursuance thereof. He submits that some teachers were appointed even before filing of the writ petition. None of the teachers, who were either selected before filing of the writ petition or even after filing of the writ petition, are made party-respondents, nor the petitioner, in person, sought amendment of the writ petition challenging the selection and appointment of these teachers. He also submits that the State Government had followed in past and shall follow in future all guidelines/mandatory requirements prescribed by the NCTE scrupulously for conducting examinations for recruitment. His statement is recorded and accepted. He also submits that the State Government had followed in past and shall follow in future all guidelines/mandatory requirements prescribed by the NCTE scrupulously for conducting examinations for recruitment. His statement is recorded and accepted. In view thereof, though initially, petitioner, in person, sought permission to serve all selected and appointed persons as teachers by issuing public notice in two daily newspapers, she submits that in view of the subsequent development, namely, the decision of the respondents to follow all the guidelines/mandatory requirements prescribed by the NCTE for holding such examinations, this petition may be disposed of, with liberty to the petitioner to file fresh petition, if the circumstances so demand or in future, the petitioner finds that the respondents are either not following the guidelines/mandatory requirements prescribed by the NCTE, including that are provided in the notification dated 11.2.2011, or commit any other illegality. In the circumstances, we dispose of the writ petition, with liberty to the petitioner, in person, as prayed. In view of this order, pending applications, if any, stand disposed of." 67. In view of the above, since the authority in question was required to follow the guidelines of NCTE, therefore, in the light of the mandate of the Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Bhav Nagar University vs. Pali Tana Sugar Mills Pvt. Ltd. & others 2003 (2) SCC 111 (supra), the authority concerned must adhere to the guidelines of the NCTE. 68. Since passing of the Teacher Eligibility Test being one of the eligibility being fixed by the NCTE, a academic authority under Section 23 of the Right of Children to Free and Compulsory Education Act, 2009 (here-in-after referred to as RTE Act) and for appearing in the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination 2018, it is essential qualification for appointment on the post of Assistant Teacher run in the State of U.P. has materially been effected due to apparent discrepancy and fault committed by the examination body, therefore, the petitioners have been deprived from the result as per their own ability and competence on account of the aforesaid illegal, arbitrary and unwarranted approach of the authority concerned. Therefore, the fundamental rights of the petitioners, particularly Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, have been violated. Section 23 of the RTE Act, 2009 is being reproduced here-in-below:- "23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. Therefore, the fundamental rights of the petitioners, particularly Articles 14, 16 and 21 of the Constitution of India, have been violated. Section 23 of the RTE Act, 2009 is being reproduced here-in-below:- "23. Qualifications for appointment and terms and conditions of service of teachers. (1) Any person possession such minimum qualifications, as laid down by the academic authority, authorised by the Central Government, by notification, shall be eligible for appointment as a teacher. (2) Where a State does not have adequate institutions offering courses or training in teacher education, or teachers possession minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1) are not available in sufficient numbers, the Central Government may, if its deems necessary, by notification, relax the minimum qualifications required for appointment as a teacher, for such period, not exceeding five years, as ma6y be specified in that notifications: Provided that a teacher who, at the commencement of this Act, does not possess minimum qualifications as laid down under sub-section (1), shall acquire such minimum qualifications within a period of five years. (3) The salary and allowances payable to, and the terms and conditions of service of, teachers shall be such as may be prescribed." 69. The learned Advocate General has also submitted that in the light of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: Ran Vijay Singh & others vs. State of U.P. & others reported in 2018 (2) SCC 357 , the High Court cannot interfere in the recruitment process. 70. The learned Advocate General has referred paras-28 to 30 of the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court submitting that the Court should not issue direction for re-evaluation where there is no provision for revaluation. "28. The facts in Central Board of Secondary Education v. Khushboo Shrivastava9 are rather interesting. The respondent was a candidate in the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (for short "the CBSE"). Soon after the results of the examination were declared, she applied for re-evaluation of her answer sheets. The CBSE declined her request since there was no provision for this. She then filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court and the learned Single Judge called for her answer sheets and on a perusal thereof and on comparing her answers with the model or key answers concluded that she deserved an additional two marks. The CBSE declined her request since there was no provision for this. She then filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court and the learned Single Judge called for her answer sheets and on a perusal thereof and on comparing her answers with the model or key answers concluded that she deserved an additional two marks. The view of the learned Single Judge was upheld by the Division Bench of the High Court. 29. In appeal, this Court set aside the decision of the High Court and reiterating the view already expressed by this Court from time to time and allowing the appeal of the CBSE it was held: "9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission has clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth that in the absence of any provision for the re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda in which the direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answer books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was held to be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which conducted the examination, did not make any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the rules. 10. In the present case, the bye-laws of the All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination, 2007 conducted by the CBSE did not provide for re-examination or re-evaluation of answer sheets. Hence, the appellants could not have allowed such re-examination or re-evaluation on the representation of Respondent 1 and accordingly rejected the representation of Respondent 1 for re-examination/re-evaluation of her answer sheets...... 11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to Respondent 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters. ....." 30. ....." 30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any "inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation" and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate." 71. With due respect to the aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court, I find that the judgment of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) is not applicable in the facts and circumstances of the case in hand and it is settled proposition of law by Hon'ble Apex Court in catina of judgments that if any case is having different facts and circumstances, such case should be dealt with differently. 72. The case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) was filed before the High Court after the final result of the examination was published by the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers in Social Science. Those writ petition were dismissed by the High Court for the reason that since there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheet in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 or the Rules framed thereunder. 73. Not only the above, another batch of writ petition (having 77 writ petitioners) were filed before another Single Judge of the High Court in the same issue and despite the fact that earlier writ petition had already been dismissed, the petitioners challenged seven questions/ answers in the written examination alleging those questions/ answers incorrect. 73. Not only the above, another batch of writ petition (having 77 writ petitioners) were filed before another Single Judge of the High Court in the same issue and despite the fact that earlier writ petition had already been dismissed, the petitioners challenged seven questions/ answers in the written examination alleging those questions/ answers incorrect. The leaned Single Judge decided those writ petitions directing re-examination of the answer sheets of those petitioners. 74. It is to be noted that the facts and circumstances of the instant case are different as in this case only the result of TET 2017 has been declared whereby the successful candidates would be appearing in the main examination i.e. the Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018, which is scheduled to be held on 12.03.2018. To be more precise, the result of TET 2017 was declared on 15.12.2017 and the leading petition i.e. Writ Petition No.28222 (S/S) of 2017; Mohd. Rizwan & others vs. State of U.P. & others has been on 20.11.2017. Thus, the facts of the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) are different to the facts of the present case. 75. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when there is no provision of re-evaluation to re-evaluate the correctness of answer key, the High Court should not interfere in the recruitment process. 76. In the instant case, as per the guidelines issued by the competent authority vide order dated 21.08.2017, time schedule for conducting the U.P. TET-2017 Examination has been fixed. The aforesaid guidelines have been enclosed as Annexure No.5 with the leading Writ Petition No.28222 (S/S) of 2017; Mohd. Rizwan & others vs. State of U.P. & others. As per item No.15 of the aforesaid guidelines, the date of examination was 15.10.2017. Item No.18 provides that the answer sheet would be circulated on the website on 17.10.2017. Item No.19 provides that the last date for filing objection on answer sheet would be 21.10.2017. Item No.20 provides that for disposal of the objections the committee of subject expert would be constituted on 27.10.2017. Item No.21 provides that the report of the committee of subject expert would be uploaded on the website on 30.10.2017. Item No.22 provides that pursuant to the report of the subject experts, the modified result would be declared on 30.11.2017. Item No.20 provides that for disposal of the objections the committee of subject expert would be constituted on 27.10.2017. Item No.21 provides that the report of the committee of subject expert would be uploaded on the website on 30.10.2017. Item No.22 provides that pursuant to the report of the subject experts, the modified result would be declared on 30.11.2017. Since in the instant case, the modified result was to be declared after considering the objections on answerkey so the facts herein are not similar to the facts of Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra). In this case the authority concerned / committee of subject experts were to re-evaluate / re-examine the answer key while deciding the objects of the candidates. 77. In the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), there was two conflicting orders of this Court. By first order, this Court was pleaded to dismiss the writ petition of the candidates on the ground that since there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the U.P. Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 or the Rules framed thereunder, therefore, the writ petitions were dismissed but when the similar writ petitions were filed after dismissal of the earlier writ petitions alleging that some questions are wrong, this Court issued an order directing re-examination of the answer sheets of those petitioners with further direction that in case these petitioners are selected, then those at the bottom of the select list would automatically have to be pushed out. The first judgment was passed by this Court placing reliance of the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in re: H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur reported in 2010 6 SCC 759 . The aforesaid judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court (in re: Mukesh Thakur) has been referred in paras-17 and 18 of the judgment of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), which is being reproduced here-in-below:- "17. It was submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that the Uttar Pradesh Secondary Education Services Selection Board Act, 1982 and the Rules framed thereunder do not provide for any re-evaluation of the answer sheets and, therefore, the learned Single Judge ought not to have undertaken that exercise at all. Reference was made to the following passage from Mukesh Thakur which considered several decisions on the subject and held: '20. Reference was made to the following passage from Mukesh Thakur which considered several decisions on the subject and held: '20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.' 18. A complete hands-off or no-interference approach was neither suggested in Mukesh Thakur nor has it been suggested in any other decision of this Court - the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent." 78. As per para-18 of the judgment Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court has clarified that the High Court has not been barred absolutely to interfere in the identical matters. As per the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, the case law developed over the years admits of interference in the results of an examination but in rare and exceptional situations and to a very limited extent. Therefore, in view of the above, the High Court can interfere in the result of an examination considering the exceptional situation of the cases in hand. 79. In this case, there is no such situation regarding any conflicting decisions/ orders of this Court. Thus, the aforesaid fact in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) is different from the facts and circumstances of the issue in question. 80. 79. In this case, there is no such situation regarding any conflicting decisions/ orders of this Court. Thus, the aforesaid fact in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) is different from the facts and circumstances of the issue in question. 80. At last but the least, the facts and circumstances of Ran Vijay Singh's case (supra) are also different from the case in hand inasmuch as the examination for recruitment as Trained Graduate Teachers was conducted in January, 2009 and that issue could not be concluded till December, 2017 and the Hon'ble Apex Court vide judgment and order dated 11.12.2017 directed the authorities concerned to prepare the result in the light of order/ direction of Hon'ble Apex Court, whereas in the instant case, the main examination in question is yet to take place. Therefore, in view of the above, I respectfully say that I have full faith and regard towards the judgment/order of Hon'ble Apex Court passed in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) but since the facts and circumstances of the aforesaid case are different from the facts and circumstances of the case at hand, therefore, the State-respondents may not take any aid from the aforesaid judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra). 81. The Court also takes note of the fact that as per the guidelines issued for conducting examination in question wherein item no. 1(4) categorically provides as to who would be responsible person for conducting the examination, preparation of the question-papers, printing of question-papers, preparation of result, etc. The aforesaid guidelines categorically provides that the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, U.P. Allahabad would be solely responsible for conducting the examination in question including the preparation of question-paper, printing thereof and preparation of final result. It is the sole responsibility of the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority to verify as to whether the question papers have been prepared strictly in accordance with the guidelines or not. 82. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the W.P. No. 2293 (S/S) of 2018, Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi has submitted that the question-papers have not been asked strictly as per the guidelines and, more particularly, the questions from language-paper have not been asked strictly in accordance with the guidelines. 83. 82. Learned counsel for the petitioners, in the W.P. No. 2293 (S/S) of 2018, Sri Rajeiu Kumar Tripathi has submitted that the question-papers have not been asked strictly as per the guidelines and, more particularly, the questions from language-paper have not been asked strictly in accordance with the guidelines. 83. Replying the aforesaid submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioners, the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority has admitted vide her supplementary counter affidavit dated 22.2.2018 in para no. 26 and 28 thereof, that on account of paper-setter for each subjects the questions in language-paper have not been asked as per the guidelines. She has also submitted that she does not know how many questions from sub-section regarding language-papers have been asked. 84. The aforesaid admission on the part of the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority, makes it abundantly clear that the aforesaid anomaly has not only been admitted by the competent authority but also she is trying to shift the aforesaid liability on the shoulders of paper-setters which cannot be done by her in the light of the provision 1(4) of the guidelines. 85. Not only the above, in the instant case, since the examination of TET-2017 has not been conducted strictly as per guidelines; at least 8 questions are wrong; two questions in the language 'Sanskrit' have wrong alternatives; four questions are out of syllabus as per the syllabus prescribed in the guidelines and proper number of questions have not been asked in the paper of language. Therefore, I find that it is a rare and exceptional situation to interfere in the result of the examination in question. 86. In view of the above, from Question Booklet 'C', it is to be noted that total 8 questions bearing question nos. 16, 18, 26, 32, 123, 126, 131 and 146 appears to be wrong. Further total 2 questions bearing question nos. 61 and 80 in the language 'Sanskrit' have either wrong answers and more than two answers and total 4 questions bearing nos. 121, 133, 140 and 150 in the subject of 'Environmental Studies' are out of syllabus as per syllabus prescribed by the guidelines. The grand-total of the aforesaid questions would be 14 in number. However, the aforesaid anomaly is there in all the series, so required exercise would be done for all the series. 87. 121, 133, 140 and 150 in the subject of 'Environmental Studies' are out of syllabus as per syllabus prescribed by the guidelines. The grand-total of the aforesaid questions would be 14 in number. However, the aforesaid anomaly is there in all the series, so required exercise would be done for all the series. 87. Not only the above, the anomaly by not asking required questions in language papers which has been admitted by the authority concerned shows the non-serious and casual approach of the examining body and on account of this reason the entire examination may be declared void but lacs of candidates have already appeared in the TET-2017 examination and thousands of candidates have already cleared the said examination. Therefore, it would not be in the ends of justice for the successful candidates who have qualified the aforesaid examination even in a given circumstances where the examining body has not conducted the examination strictly in accordance with law. On account of aforesaid reason also I find that it is a rare and exceptional situation to interfere in the result of the examination in question. 88. There is more confusion in the evaluation as well because at one point of time marks was being awarded to only those candidates who have attempted those questions and not to others. This re-evaluation was done with a stand that as many marks is given to all the candidates but those who have already been given marks with the above procedure will not be given extra marks. 89. The Court, therefore, comes to a considered opinion that the only way to restore confidence and faith in the examination so held by the Examination Board would be to delete as many questions which are said to be 14 and evaluate the answer sheet of all the candidates with reduced number of correct questions. The publication of result after the above exercise will throw up the correct merit position of all the candidates with advantage or disadvantage to none. 90. Before I part with the present judgment, I consider it appropriate to issue certain directives to be followed in future. It would have been ideal situation that utmost care is taken, while setting multiple choice questions leaving no scope of uncertainity in assessing individual merits of the test takers. 90. Before I part with the present judgment, I consider it appropriate to issue certain directives to be followed in future. It would have been ideal situation that utmost care is taken, while setting multiple choice questions leaving no scope of uncertainity in assessing individual merits of the test takers. However, there can be a situation, where despite due care taken, mistakes may occur in preparing such questions, because of human error. This Court is of the view that the agencies / authorities, responsible for setting such questions, should carry out the exercise with utmost care as even a small flaw leads to series of litigations, creates lot of confusion and, at times, puts question mark on the sanctity of selection process itself. 91. Keeping in mind that there has been numerous instances, where the questions have been found to be incorrect, giving rise to several litigations, we are compelled to issue general directions to the such statutory bodies or other agencies holding tests based on multiple-choice questions for the purpose of appointment to various posts under the State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India or for the purpose of admission to various institutions managed or controlled by the State. 92. Having considered the matters in its entirety and in the interest of justice, we, therefore, direct as follows:- (a) Immediately after a multiple choice question test is held, it shall be obligatory for the Committee or the Body, which conducts such a test, to undertake an exercise, before evaluating the answer-sheets, to ascertain whether the questions were correctly framed having definite answers. In case any objections are invited from the candidates and such objections are received, they must be looked into by a body of the experts, who would not only be required to ascertain whether the questions were correctly framed or not, but they would also be required to examine as to whether the model answers, prepared by the question-setter, are correct or not, for the purpose of correct evaluation of answer-sheets. (b) If the structure of a question is found to be incorrect or if the option suggested is found to be incorrect or if there is any printing mistake of such a nature that the correct answer cannot be ascertained or more than one option is found to be correct, such a question must be rejected and should not be allowed to be evaluated. 93. In view of the aforesaid discussions, the writ petitions deserve to be Allowed in part. 94. A writ in the nature of certiorari is issued quashing the result to the extent of fourteen (14) questions only, as stated in para nos. 85 and 86 of this judgment. 95. A writ of mandamus is issued commanding the Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority to make a fresh evaluation of all the answer sheets of the candidates by deleting 14 questions, as stated in para 85 and 86 of this order from the total questions of question papers. The Secretary, Examination Regulatory Authority shall declare the results on the basis of the above direction as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of one month and thereafter the examination of The Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018 shall be conducted. It is needless to direct that till the completion of aforesaid exercise the examination of The Assistant Teacher Recruitment Examination, 2018 be postponed for further date. 96. No orders as to cost.