JUDGMENT : Vikram Nath, Pankaj Bhatia, J. 1. These three appeals have been filed by the State of Uttar Pradesh challenging three distinct but similar orders and judgments whereby the writ petitions were allowed by the learned Single Judge with directions to correct the marks of the questions which were wrongly marked. 2. Briefly stated the facts of the writ petitions leading to the filing of the present appeals are as under: 3. The Writ Petition No. 5305 of 2019 (Neha Parveen vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) was filed alleging that the State of U.P. held an examination for filing the vacancies in the Primary School run by the Uttar Pradesh Basic Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad for appointment of Assistant Teachers. The said appointments were under the U.P. Basic Education (Teachers) Service Rules, 1981 (in short the 'Rules 1981'). It was alleged that the examination comprised of four series of booklets consisting of 150 questions each and the answers were to be filled in hand, subsequently, Model Booklet Answer Key was published and the results were declared. The petitioners filed writ petitions stating that the computation of marks was improper and, even on reevaluation, some of the answers given by the petitioners, were said to have been wrongly marked. It was the case of the petitioner that she was awarded 66 marks whereas the qualifying marks were 67. The petitioner relied upon the judgment of this Court in Writ A No. 18235 of 2018 (Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others) whereby the High Court had passed an order dated 30.10.2018 directing the authorities to pass an appropriate order. The learned Single Judge had called for instructions from the Standing Counsel which were taken on record and the learned Single Judge considered the Question No. 123 attempted by the petitioner which was alleged to be wrongful marked. The said question no. 123 was as under: 3. Fill up the blank: “Kohiberg's theory explains ? Development of a child.” fjDr LFkku Hkfj, % ^^dksgycxZ dk fl)kar ,d ckyd ds fodkl dh O;k[;k djrk gSA^^ 4. The answer given to the said question as is clear from the answer sheet on record was ^^uSfrdrk^^ whereas the model answer to the said question was ^^uSfrd^^ 5. Fill up the blank: “Kohiberg's theory explains ? Development of a child.” fjDr LFkku Hkfj, % ^^dksgycxZ dk fl)kar ,d ckyd ds fodkl dh O;k[;k djrk gSA^^ 4. The answer given to the said question as is clear from the answer sheet on record was ^^uSfrdrk^^ whereas the model answer to the said question was ^^uSfrd^^ 5. Learned Single Judge relying upon the judgment of Aniruddha Narayan Shukla and 118 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others accepted the submission of the petitioner and found that the word Moral ¼uSfrd½ is same as Morality uSfrdrk held as under: “The question was about the Kohlberg's theory which explains development of a child, answer to which was Moral ( uSfrdrk ) development of a child. If the word ( uSfrdrk ) is read by filling the blanks in question no.123, this Court finds that there would not be much different as the substance of the said answer would remain the same as that of the answer given in the key answer. It, therefore, can be said that the petitioner had understood the question and while writing answer, he made a mistake of spelling. In the opinion of the Court, one mark is to be assigned to answer to question no.123.” 6. The second Writ Petition No. 5984 of 2019 (Pramod Kumar vs. State of U.P. and another) was filed by Pramod Kumar alleging that the answer given by the petitioner to Question No. 76 is correct and similar to the model answer and as such should be awarded the marks. The question was as under: 'kqf"B dk rnzo 'kCn D;k gS\ The answer given by the petitioner was ^^'kksB^^ whereas the model answer was ^^lksB^^ Learned Single Judge recorded as under: “A perusal of the answer script of the petitioner, the question booklet series-D and the key answer, the answer given by the petitioner to question no. 76 is found close to the key answer. There appears to be some spelling mistake in the answer given to question no. 76 as instead of writing ^^lksB^^ , the petitioner had written the word ^^'kksB^^ It can, thus, be seen that the petitioner was well acquainted with the answer to the question no. 76 but made a spelling mistake while writing the same. There appears to be some spelling mistake in the answer given to question no. 76 as instead of writing ^^lksB^^ , the petitioner had written the word ^^'kksB^^ It can, thus, be seen that the petitioner was well acquainted with the answer to the question no. 76 but made a spelling mistake while writing the same. In view of the judgment of this Court in Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others (Writ-A No. 18235 of 2018, this Court is of the view that the answer to question no. 76 of the petitioner shall be treated as a correct answer and one mark shall be provided to the petitioner for the same.” 7. The third case was filed by the petitioner alleging that the petitioner has been wrongly denied one mark for the question which according to the petitioner he had correctly answered. The question was: ^^fy[kkoV 'kCn fdl izdkj dk izR;; gS\^^ 8. The answer given by the petitioner was ^vkor izR;;^ whereas the model answer to the said question was ^^d`r izR;;@vkoV@oV^- 9. Learned Single Judge recorded as under: “The answer to question no.40, as demonstrated from the key answer and the answer script of the petitioner is very close, in fact, is correct. There is some mistake in writing the said answer which is minor and can be ignored in view of the judgment of this Court dated 30.10.2018 in Writ A No.18235 of 2018 (Aniruddh Narayan Shukla & others Vs. State of U.P. & others), wherein it is directed that mark be awarded to the candidates for the correct answers ignoring cutting and overwriting in the answer scripts.” 10. The present appeals have been filed challenging the said three orders as quoted above. 11. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Suresh Singh and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsels for the State-appellants, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsels appearing for the private respondents. 12. The present appeals have been filed challenging the said three orders as quoted above. 11. Heard Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, assisted by Sri Suresh Singh and Sri Pankaj Rai, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsels for the State-appellants, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Sri Amit Shukla, learned counsels appearing for the private respondents. 12. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, has submitted that the learned Single Judge has erred in allowing the writ petition placing reliance on the judgment in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others as the law laid down in the said judgment could not be applied to the facts of the cases which were there before the learned Single Judge. He further submits that in the matters of examination the Court cannot interfere in the reevaluation process which should be left to the experts and only in rare or exceptional cases can the Court interfere. He has relied upon a series of judgments of this Court as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court which are as under: Sl. No. Citation of cases Description of cases 1 Special Appeal Defective No. 3 of 2019 Himanshu Gangwar and others vs. State of U.P. 2 2018 (7) SCC 254 Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Chairman and another vs. Rahul Singh and another 3 2018 (2) SCC 357 Ram Vijay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others 4 2010 (6) SCC 759 Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and another 5 2005 (13) SCC 744 Manish Ujwal and others vs. Maharshi Dayanand Saraswati University and others 6 2004 (6) SCC 714 Pramod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman Bihar Public Service Commission Patna and others 7 1984 (4) SCC 27 Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupesh kumar Sheth and others 8 1983 (4) SCC 309 Kanpur University through Vice-chancellor and others vs. Samir Gupta and others On specific query being raised as to whether the judgment of this Court in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others has been challenged, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi states that the said judgment has not been challenged, however, he states that the said judgment is not applicable to the facts of the present case. On the other hand, Sri R.K. Ojha, learned Senior Advocate, appears for the respondents, has argued that the case in hand was squarely covered by the judgment of this Court in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others. He has further argued that the case in hand was not the same as is applicable in the case of OMR Sheets based process of examination and the students are expected to write their answers and small variance cannot be the basis of denying the marks to the students and the intent of the Examining Body should be to ensure that the substance of the answer is known to the candidates. Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Counsel, has further drawn the attention of this Court to the minor checking and reevaluation to argue that even on reevaluation the minor errors have been ignored and marks have been awarded only on the basis that the candidate have understood the questions. Sri R.K. Ojha, Senior Counsel, has further drawn the attention of this Court to the minor checking and reevaluation to argue that even on reevaluation the minor errors have been ignored and marks have been awarded only on the basis that the candidate have understood the questions. He relies on the reevaluated answer sheet in the case of Pramod Kumar, which is filed as Annexure-4 to the Special Appeal No. 903 of 2019, is as under: 68500 lgk;d v/;kid HkrhZ ijh{kk 2018 ds iquZewY;kafdr mRrjiqfLrdkvksa dk fooj.k uke jksy ua0 ;kfpdk la0 mŸkjiqfLrdk vuqnkfur vad ;kph }kjk dh x;h vkifRr vH;qfDr iqueqZY;kadu ds iwoZ iqueqZY;kdu ds i'pkr~ iz'u la ;kph }kjk fn;k x;k mRrj mRrjekyk esa mRrj iquZewY;kadu esa izkIr vad izeksn dqekj (D) 03070703476 5984@2019 63 66 1 l;ksxkRed dh Hkwfedk ijke'kZnkrk@funsZ'kd@lqfo/kk iznkrk@ekxZn'kZd @lykgdkj@iFk izn'kZd@lg;ksx dh Hkwfedk 01 16 FkkuZMkbd FkkuZMkbd@bZ0,y0 FkkuZMkbd 01 17 80&90 rd tM+cqf)] ew<+] ew[kZ@81&90] 80&89] 90 ls de lHkh vkbZD;w oxZ 00 20 vlk/; ,oa vkfFkZd :i ls fiNM+s] cPpks f'k{kk ds fy, fodykax@fnO;kax cPpks gsrq@'kkjhfjd :i ls v{ke@fof'k"V ckyd@ih0MCyw0Mh0@fu%'kDr@v{ke 00 50 ,sfVfu;ks xqVjsl ,aVksfu;ks xqVsjsl@,aVksfu;ks xqVjsl 01 57 nh?kZ lfU/k o`f) lfU/k@Loj lfU/k 00 76 lkssB lksaB 00 13 1 iz'uksRrj fof/k dk rFkk mipkjkRed f'k{k.k dk;Z funkukRed ijh{k.k@MkbXuksfLVd ijh{k.k@funkukRed ewY;kadu 00 134 laosx HkkokRed i{k@Hkkoi{k@laosxkRed i{k 00 14 6 LVªho xeZ ty /kkjk xYQLVªhe 00 Lak'kksf/kr vad iz'u la0 ftu ij vad iznku fd;k x;k iz'u la0 ;kph }kjk fn;k x;k mRrj mRrjekyk es mRrj izkIr vad 1 l;ksxkRed dh ijke'kZnkrk@funsZ'kd@lqfo/kk iznkrk@ekxZn'kZd@lykgdkj@iFk izn'kZd@lg;ksx dh Hkwfedk@ 01 16 FkkuZMkbd FkkuZMkbd@bZ0,y0 FkkuZMkbd 01 50 ,sfVfu;ks xqVjsl ,aVksfu;ks xqVsjsl@,aVksfu;ks xqVjsl 01 iz'u ftl ij =qfViw.kZ iznRr vad iz'u la0 ;kph }kjk fn;k x;k mRrj mRrjekyk es mRrj izkIr vad 7. A perusal of the said reevaluation answer sheet reveals that Question No. 1 the answer given by the candidate was ^^l;kasxkRed dh Hkwfedk^^ whereas as per model answer sheet seven answers were shown as model answers which are as under: 8. ijke'kZnkrk@funs'kd@lqfo/kk iznkrk@ekxZn'kZd@lykgdkj@iFk funs'kd@lg;ksx dh Hkwfedk@ which reveals that the answer given by the candidate was different from the seven answers prescribed in the model answer sheet, however, it was similar to the one of the answers in the model answer sheet and one mark was awarded even in the reevaluated mark-sheet ignoring the minor discrepancy in the answers from that prescribed in the model answers. 9. 9. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, was confronted with the said arguments to which no explanation was offered, however, Sri M.C. Chaturvedi stressed that the word ^^'kksB^^ as answered by the candidate cannot be accepted to be a correct answer, which according to the model answer sheet, should be ^^lksB^^ and he further stresses that the answer ^^vkor izR;;^^ written by the petitioner cannot be accepted as a correct answer which according to the model answer sheet ^^vkor izR;;^^ 10. Sri M.C. Chaturvedi, learned Additional Advocate General, was specifically confronted to points the difference between ^^uSfrd^^ and uSfrdrk i.e. moral and morality to which no convincing answer was given. 11. The settled position as emerges from the arguments raised at the bar is that judgment in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla and 118 others vs. State of U.P. and 3 others was not challenged and has attained finality. 12. The learned Single Judge while delivering the judgment in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra) noted the difference in the examination conducted through Optical Mark Recognition (OMR) Sheet which are processed and scanned by computerised machines and the pattern of question paper as in the present case which is a separate distinct process wherein the candidates were called upon to answer 150 questions to be given by the candidate which could be maximum up to one line. The learned Single Judge noting the difference in between the two patterns of examination held that the expression in this type question paper can vary for each candidate and thus the expression used by the candidate and slightly varrying from expression as contained in the moral answer key could not be treated to be a wrong answer. The learned Single Judge to appreciate the issues took illustrations of a few questions to demonstrate that a hypertechnical approach in reevaluating the answer based upon this kind of question paper would not be a correct approach as the substance of the answer should be preferred over the form. Learned Single Judge held as under: “The answers were, otherwise, required to be given in one-line and therefore, in some of the cases, candidates, after having written the answer, changed/modified it by making some cutting/overwriting, etc. The authorities have completely ignored even the correct answer on the ground that there is some cutting in the answer. Learned Single Judge held as under: “The answers were, otherwise, required to be given in one-line and therefore, in some of the cases, candidates, after having written the answer, changed/modified it by making some cutting/overwriting, etc. The authorities have completely ignored even the correct answer on the ground that there is some cutting in the answer. Similarly, it would be apposite to refer to Question No. 83 of Booklet Series 'A', which reads as under:- “Q 83. Who introduced the five steps system in preparation lesson planning? ^^;kstuk fuekZ.k esa iapinh; iz.kkyh ds iz.ksrk dkSu Fks \^^ Its answer, as per the model answer key, mentions as “ gjckVZ /Herbart”. Some of the candidates mentioned the answer as “ gjcVZ ”, which has been taken as wrong answer. Question No. 48 of Booklet Series 'A' reads as under:- “Q 48. The naked seeded plants are called. ^^UkXu chtks okys ikS/ksa dks dgk tkrk gSA^^ Its answer, as per model answer key, reads thus:- ^^ftEuksLieZ@vuko`rchth ikS/ks@vuko`rchth@uXuchth chth ikS/ks^^ It transpires that if someone has mentioned the answer as ^^vuko`Rr chth ikS/ks^^ , then his answer is treated to be a wrong answer. Question No. 99 of the Booklet Series 'A' also needs to be taken note of and is reproduced hereinafter:- “Q 99. What is the right order of feeble mindedness based on IQ? cqf}yfC/k vkbZD;w ds vk/kkj ij eUncqf}rk ds Lrj dk lgh Øe D;k gS\^^ Its answer, as per the model answer key, is mentioned as:- ^^tM+cqf}] ew<+] ew[kZ@81&90] 80&89] 90 ls de lHkh vkbD;w oxZ@ew[kZ] ew<+] tM+@eUncqf}] vYicqf}] tM+cqf}@ Moron, Imbecile, Idiot” Some of the candidates, who have mentioned answer as “80 -90” or those who have mentioned less than 90, etc., have been treated as wrong answer. Upon examination of the entire paper as well as the manner in which it has been evaluated by the authorities, this Court finds that evaluation has unnecessarily been made hyper-technical and in stead of evaluating the answer, based on substance of the answer, the form, in which it is expressed in model answer key, has been given precedence. Once the answers have been specified some departure in the manner of expressing answer would be inevitable from candidate to candidate and ought not to be made the basis for denying marks, if the answer, in substance, is correct. Once the answers have been specified some departure in the manner of expressing answer would be inevitable from candidate to candidate and ought not to be made the basis for denying marks, if the answer, in substance, is correct. Since the authorities have already entertained the objections pursuant to the Government Order dated 05.10.2018 and an exercise for re-evaluation is proposed to be undertaken by them, it would be appropriate to clarify that object of holding of examination is to find out the best available talent in open market for being recruited as Assistant Teacher. The object is to test the knowledge of the applicant and therefore, the substance of answer needs to be evaluated and not the form in which it is expressed. As has already been clarified, mere change in the way of giving answer is inevitable, particularly, as the answer is to be given in one-line. The authorities would not be doing justice to the merits of a candidate while examining his candidature, if a right answer is held wrong only because it is not strictly as per the expression used in the model answer key. Such approach cannot be approved of. It is, therefore, provided that while undertaking the exercise of re-evaluation, the authorities would not give undue weightage to exact wordings used in the model answer key and the examiner would be expected to evaluate answers in light of the model answer key by laying emphasis on the substance of answer and not restrict it to the exact expression used in the model answer key.” 13. Learned Single Judge framed as many as five issues and while answering Issue Nos. 4 and 5 held as under: (IV) Against some questions, marks have not been awarded for correct answers on the pretext that there exists some cutting before correct answers have been found recorded though the answers are otherwise legible: The fourth issue highlighted on behalf of the petitioners is with reference to answers, even when are correct, no marks have been awarded in view of certain cuttings or overwriting, although answers are right and legible. It has already been observed that the Examination Regulatory Authority would not give precedence to form over substance and if the answers are correct, the candidates would be awarded marks, even if there is some cuttings or overwriting. This, however, would be subject to the answer being legible and clear. It has already been observed that the Examination Regulatory Authority would not give precedence to form over substance and if the answers are correct, the candidates would be awarded marks, even if there is some cuttings or overwriting. This, however, would be subject to the answer being legible and clear. It is also clarified that if the candidates have given two answers, although they were required to give one answer, then the examining authority would be at liberty to ignore the answer; in as much as, the applicants/candidates are expected to give only one answer and not two answers. (v) No marks have been awarded to some of the correct answers if the unit such as 'Rupees' or 'Kilometre' etc. has not been written or minor grammatical errors have been made while the answer is materially and substantially correct: The fifth category of candidates, again, are those who have highlighted the instances of giving preference to form over substance. In order to substantiate the grievance, reference is made to question no. 66, as well as its answer shown in model answer key, which is extracted hereinafter: “Q.66. If the wages of 6 men for 15 days be Rs. 2100, then find the wages of 9 men for 12 days. ;fn 6 iq:"kksa dh 15 fnuksa dh etnwjh #-2100 gks] rks 9 iq#"kksa dh 12 fnu dh etnwjh Kkr dhft,A^^ Its answer, as per model answer key, reads as under:- ^^#0 2520 ;k Rs. 2520” It is pointed out that many of the candidates, who have mentioned the answer as “2520” but have failed to mention rupee (Rs.) as unit, have been denied marks. The question intended to test the mathematical ability of the candidate and if the candidate was right, then answer could not have been held wrong only because the unit was not specified in the answer. Similarly, Question No. 55 of Booklet Series 'A' reads as under:- “Q.55. Find each of exterior angles of a regular polygon of 10 sides. ,d nl Hkqtkvksa okys fu;fer cgqHkqt ds izR;sd cká dks.kksa dks Kkr dhft,A^^ Its answer, as per model answer key, reads as under:-“36°” Its answer in the model answer key is specified as 36°'. Some of the candidates have mentioned the correct answer as 36', but the degree sign mentioned is not legible or clear or omitted, which has been treated as a wrong answer. Some of the candidates have mentioned the correct answer as 36', but the degree sign mentioned is not legible or clear or omitted, which has been treated as a wrong answer. Question No. 135, similarly, is also extracted hereinafter:- “Q.135. Mohan starts to walk in west direction and wals 3 km, then turns right and walks further 4 km. He further turns left and walks 2 km, again turns left and walks 4 km. How far is Mohan from its origin and in what direction?. eksgu if'pe dh vkssj 3 fd0eh0 pydj viuh nkW;h vksj eqMrk gS vkSj 4 fd0eh0 pyrk gS fQj ckW;h vksj eqMdj 2 fd0eh0 pyrk gS rnqijkUr iqu% ckW;h vksj eqM+dj 4 fd0eh0 dh nw+jh r; djrk gSA og vius pyus ds LFkku ls fdruh nwj o fdl fn'kk esa gS \A^^ Its answer, as per model answer key, reads as under:- ^^5 fd0eh0 if'pe^^ Some of the candidates, who have written the correct answer, if have failed to clarify kms./kilometer, their answer has been treated as wrong. From all these questions, it appears that even where the calculation is right, but the unit is omitted, the answer has been treated as wrong. Although writing of unit may be desirable, but its omission ought not to be a ground to deny awarding of marks, since the object is to evaluate the mathematical skill and ability of the candidate himself. The authorities, therefore, for the purpose of re-evaluation, would not given unnecessary importance to such omission in mentioning of unit, etc., like rupee (Rs.) or kms./kilometer, etc. 14. Thus, in sum and substance, learned Single Judge, while dealing with the same examination, had held that the reevaluation or the checking should be done giving preference to the substance over the form of answer and thus the reevaluation should be done keeping in view the directions as given in the said judgment. Parties agree that the said judgment had attained the finality. 15. Parties agree that the said judgment had attained the finality. 15. We are unable to appreciate the argument of Sri M.C. Chaturvedi that the facts of the cases, which have led the filing of the present special appeals, are not covered by the judgment of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra) as the learned Single Judge in the present cases has simply followed the directions given in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla to hold that the answer given by the petitioners were in substance correct and they were wrongly denied the marks by the Examining Body. 16. Reverting to the judgments, as cited by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi and opposed to have no application by Shri R.K.Ojha on the ground that the said judgments considered the examination which were conducted by the process of filling in the OMR Sheets in respect to examination wherein one of the four options given were to be answered by the candidates which did not require any expression while giving an answer we deal with the respective cases. 17. In the case of Himanshu Gangwar and others vs. State of U.P. (supra), the question raised before the Court was that whether in exercise of judicial review the Court can sit over the answers prepared by an Expert Body. The Court held that the onus is on the candidate to establish that the key answers as prepared by Expert Body are not only incorrect but there is such a mistake which by no inferential process or reason is required to be demonstrated to prove the question or answer to be wrong. The said judgment has no relevance in the present case inasmuch as there is no argument to the fact that the model answers are incorrect. In fact, the argument of the petitioner, before the learned Single Judge, was that the answer given by the petitioner, in sum and substance, is similar to the answer, as contained in the model answer sheet. 18. The next case relied upon by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Rahul Singh (supra) wherein the Supreme Court was considering the correctness of the key answers, the Supreme Court repelled the arguments of the candidates with regard to the correctness of the key answers. 18. The next case relied upon by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court in U.P. Public Service Commission vs. Rahul Singh (supra) wherein the Supreme Court was considering the correctness of the key answers, the Supreme Court repelled the arguments of the candidates with regard to the correctness of the key answers. The said judgment also has no applicability to the facts in the present case for the same reasons that it was never the case of the petitioner before the Single Judge key answer in the model answer key is incorrect. 19. The other judgment relied upon by Sri M.C. Chaturvedi in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and others vs. State of U.P. and others (supra), Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and another (supra) also relate to judicial review while ascertaining the correctness of answer key as already held by us the said cases have no applicability to the facts of the present case for the same reasons that it was never the case before the Single Judge that the model answers were wrong. 20. In all the above referred cases, as cited by Sri Chaturvedi, the questions related to the examinations conducted on the basis of OMR Sheet pattern of examination whereas the pattern of examination in the present case is clearly separate, distinct and is based upon use of expression by the candidates and as such the cases cited by Sri Chaturvedi have no applicability to the facts of the present case. 21. We are in respectful agreement with the findings of the learned Single Judge in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra) to the effect that the pattern of examination was separate, distinct and the intent of the examiner should be to see that the substance of the answer given by the candidate is correct and similar to the model answer and the form of expression should not be given precedence over the substance. In fact, the appellants have themselves accepted the ratio of the judgment and awarded mark in reevaluation giving precedence to substance over form of expression as is clear from the perusal of Question No. 1 as contained in Annexure-4 in Special Appeal No. 903 of 2019. 22. In fact, the appellants have themselves accepted the ratio of the judgment and awarded mark in reevaluation giving precedence to substance over form of expression as is clear from the perusal of Question No. 1 as contained in Annexure-4 in Special Appeal No. 903 of 2019. 22. We also do not agree with the submission of Sri M.C. Chaturvedi that the judgment in the case of Aniruddh Narayan Shukla (supra) has no applicability to the facts of the present case and we hold that the same squarely applies to the facts of the present case and we also hold that the answers given by the candidates in all the three cases in substance are similar to the model answers and the directions given by the learned Single Judge do not call for any interference by this Court. 23. The special appeals are, accordingly, dismissed.