ORDER S.N. Pathak, J. - The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for a direction upon the respondents to declare the petitioner among the successful candidates in Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test- 2016 as the petitioner would have got 79 marks out of 150 marks i.e. more than 52 % marks in Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test- 2016, but respondents have given only 75 marks out of 150 marks i.e. 50 % due to arbitrary and malicious consideration of the answers of the petitioner. Further prayer has been made to declare the option D of question No. 9 of the Hindi and option D of question No. 20 of English in the ''First Answer Key'' published by the respondents as correct answer and to hold and declare the ''Second Answer Key'' as incorrect. 2. The petitioner appeared in Jharkhand Teacher Eligibility Test Examination- 2016, which was held on 20.11.2016. The petitioner has opted compulsory Regional Language ''Panch Pargania'' and optional subject is Social Studies for JTET Examination- 2016. The petitioner belongs to Most Backward Classes and qualifying marks fixed under his category is 52 % of the total marks. It is specific case of the petitioner that due to erroneous answer keys, the petitioner cannot qualify in the JTET-2016. The petitioner would have secured 79 marks out of 150 marks but the respondents have given only 75 marks out of 150 marks to the petitioner due to erroneous second answer key. The petitioner has suffered due to respondents as they have published two answer key. Though the petitioner represented before the respondents for correction in the answer key and awarding marks as per the correct answer key but the same was not considered and petitioner was declared unsuccessful. Hence, the petitioner has preferred present writ petition. 3. Mr. Kaushalendra Prasad, learned counsel for the petitioner argues that petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer because of the fault on the part of the respondents. Apparently, the mistake lies on the part of the respondents as because of the erroneous answer keys, the petitioner has not been able to obtain required 79 marks and as such, if the first answer key is corrected, he will obtain more than 79 marks and would have been declared successful in JTET-2016. Apparently, the mistake lies on the part of the respondents as because of the erroneous answer keys, the petitioner has not been able to obtain required 79 marks and as such, if the first answer key is corrected, he will obtain more than 79 marks and would have been declared successful in JTET-2016. Learned counsel further submits that a direction be given upon the respondents to consider the first answer key as correct and to declare the result of the petitioner after awarding marks as per the first answer key. Learned counsel has also alleged mala fide against the JAC and argues that because of the mala fide intention, the case of the petitioner has not been considered. 4. Per contra, counter-affidavit has been filed. Mrs. Richa Sanchita, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that petitioner has obtained only 75 marks and he is below the cut-off marks and as such, rightly, he was not declared successful. It is only after publication of the result, the petitioner has approached this Hon''ble Court, it is settled principles of law that when the candidate has appeared in the examination, he cannot challenge the contents of the examination and in the instant case, after being declared unsuccessful, the petitioner has challenged, the correctness of the answer keys. Learned counsel draws the attention of the Court towards paragraph 10 to 12 of the counter/affidavit and submits that the entire process carried on in a transparent manner and the most appropriate answer as selected by the experts was published. Learned counsel further argues that in similar cases, the Court has already taken cognizance and has dismissed several writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No. 879/2014, W.P.(C) No. 595/2014, W.P.(C) No. 471/2014, W.P.(S) No. 4431/2013 and W.P.(C) No. 1713/2017. Learned counsel further argues that similar issue fell for consideration before the Hon''ble Division Bench of this Court in case of Rakesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors. in LPA No. 518 of 2017 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed, on such grounds learned counsel for the respondents prays that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. in LPA No. 518 of 2017 and the order passed by the learned Single Judge was affirmed, on such grounds learned counsel for the respondents prays that the present writ petition is liable to be dismissed. 5. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties, this Court is of the considered view that no case is made out for interference. The issue is now no more res integra, similar issue fell for consideration before a Coordinate bench of this Court and the same was affirmed up to Hon''ble Division Bench in case of Rakesh Kumar v. State of Jharkhand & Ors (supra). Though the learned counsel for the petitioner has raised mala fide against the post holder, but none has been impleaded as a party-respondent. 6. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that it is not required to implead a particular person/post holder as a party-respondent though mala fide has been alleged is totally misconceived and not tenable in the eyes of law. If mala fide is levelled against a particular person/post holder, the same has to be arrayed as a party-respondent, but in the instant case, nothing has been done. This Court while dismissing LPA No. 518 of 2017 has taken into consideration catena of decisions rendered by the Hon''ble Apex Court clearly observing therein that "there cannot be any authority which is error-proof authority-what is to be seen by High Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of Constitution of India is, whether there was any negligent approach on part of JPSC or examination conducting body. Every small error of Public Service Commission or examination conducting body, cannot be encashed by candidates, those who are appearing in such type of competitive examinations ought to keep in mind that objection cannot be raised about correctness of answers if key answers/model answers are prepared on the basis of report given by Subject Expert Committee. Whenever, such type of petitioners are being preferred challenging results of prelim examinations, it should be decided promptly and quickly otherwise there will be much delay in finalization of result of examination which has very cascading effect upon Main Examination and final result. Pace of interference must be slowest". 7. Whenever, such type of petitioners are being preferred challenging results of prelim examinations, it should be decided promptly and quickly otherwise there will be much delay in finalization of result of examination which has very cascading effect upon Main Examination and final result. Pace of interference must be slowest". 7. In the instant case, nothing has been brought on record that this Court should interfere, sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for examining the correctness of the Answer keys. The Hon''ble Apex Court in its recent decision in case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of U.P. & Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 has held, in para 31 as under:- "31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse - exclude the suspect or offending question." 8. Resultantly, no case is made out for interference. There is no merit in this case. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to cost.