JUDGMENT : D.B. Civil Writ Petitions No. 5502/2018, 268/2018 & 7040/2018 1. The writ petitioners allege that their answer-sheets were not properly marked in the shorthand speed test conducted by the respondents for the purpose of filling the posts of Stenographer Grade-II. The recruitment conditions stipulated that a candidate had to possess speed of 70 words per minute for Hindi Shorthand and 90 words per minute for English Shorthand, as eligibility conditions. 2. Learned Senior counsel for the petitioners urges that the answers recorded on the computer by the respondents' devices provided did not properly reflect what was attempted by the candidates; emphasis is given to the effect that hyphens and other similar symbols were not taken into account and due credit of marks was not provided. Furthermore, in few instances, improper spellings were shown as correct spellings. It was contended in these circumstances that the Court should appoint an independent team of experts to examine the answer sheets and truly evaluate performance of the petitioners. 3. This Court is of the opinion that the controversy in the present case as to whether the answer-sheets or performance was evaluated correctly is not one that can be appropriately examined in writ proceedings. The controversy is with respect to several words and the symbol marks, said to have been used or not used. In Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 357 , all previous decisions on the question of re-evaluation/re-totaling, in the absence of any existing policy or entitlement in the form of regulations, was considered. This issue was again revisited in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Chairman & Ors. Vs. Rahul Singh & Ors. (2018) 7 SCC 254 . 4. The consistent view, in all these cases, was that the Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution have little or no role at all to intervene and direct for re-evaluation of results in public examinations. In these circumstances, if the Courts were to grant relief or issue any directions of the kind claimed by the petitioners, the re-examination would alter the level plinth field, besides there is no guarantee that even the experts' report after re-evaluation, would be satisfactory to the petitioners, that in turn, might result in prejudice to third parties or further litigation. 5. For the above reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. 5. For the above reasons, the writ petitions are dismissed. D.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 19457/2018:- 6. The controversy in this case is that the writ petitioner had attempted five questions but that on account of some technical or shortcomings in respect of three questions, the answers to them only were saved. It is, therefore, claimed that 17 bonus marks should be added to the result. 7. This Court has today by following the previous binding rulings of the Supreme Court held that the dispute of the kind urged in these proceedings cannot be gone into appropriately under Article 226 of the Constitution. 8. Furthermore, the reply of the respondents also states that the writ petitioner had provided a certificate before appearing in the examination that he had understood all conditions. It is alleged that the writ petitioner had not saved the answers of the two questions. 9. In view of above, this Court is of the opinion that the facts are disputed are incapable of adjudication in these proceedings. Moreover, the writ petitioner has approached this Court a nearly a year after the appointments to the posts were made and the selection was conducted. 10. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.