JUDGMENT IRSHAD ALI, J. 1. Heard Sri Faizal Ahmad Khan, learned counsel for the petitioner and to Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 and to the learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel on behalf of respondent No.1. 2. Factual matrix of the case is that U.P. Public Service Commission published an advertisement on its website on 11.09.2018 inviting applications from the eligible and qualified candidates to appear in the preliminary examination of U.P. Judicial Services. The case of the petitioner is that in pursuance to the advertisement issued, she applied for and appeared in the preliminary examination, 2018. The result of the preliminary examination was declared on 05.01.2019 and cut of merit of the candidates was displayed by the U.P. Public Service Commission and mark sheet has been issued to the petitioner, wherein she has been shown to obtain "201" marks under female category, whereas last candidate, who has been declared to be qualified in the preliminary examination under female category has obtained "203" marks. 3. The mains examination of the U.P. P.C.S. J. (Junior Division) has been scheduled to be held w.e.f. 30.01.2019 to 01.02.2019. 4. The claim of the petitioner is that she has correctly answered question No.58. In spite of that, she has not been awarded mark against the said question. Question No.58 bears "2" marks and in case the petitioner is awarded marks for question No.58, she would be selected. 5. On the other hand, Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel representing the U.P. Public Service Commission submitted that against question No.58, several candidates filed their objections, wherein their allegation was that all the options for the said question i.e. option A, B, C and D are the correct answers. 6. He further submitted that in regard to the objections filed, initially a Committee of Six Members was constituted and after examining the material, the Committee came to the conclusion that option "D" is the correct answer. Thereafter, the matter was again placed before a Seven Member's Committee of experts and after examining the material in this regard, the Committee came to the conclusion that option "D" is the correct answer. 7. Thereafter, the matter was again placed before a Seven Member's Committee of experts and after examining the material in this regard, the Committee came to the conclusion that option "D" is the correct answer. 7. On the aforesaid facts and circumstances, submission of learned Senior Counsel is that once the expert's Committee after examination has resolved that option "D" is the correct answer, there is no room of doubt in this regard. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Chairman and another Vs. Rahul Singh and another, (2018) 7 SCC 254 and invited attention of this Court on paragraph Nos.11 and 14 of the judgment. 8. In rebuttal, learned counsel for the petitioner placed two materials before this Court, one Wikipedia and another iPCC and on the said basis, he submitted that option "A" is the correct answer of question No.58. 9. Having heard the rival contentions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, I perused the material on record as well as the record produced by Sri I.B. Singh, learned Senior Counsel. 10. To resolve the controversy, question No.58 is extracted below:- "58. International Panel on Climate Change is the leading international body established by - (a) United Nations Environmental Programme. (b) United Nations Development Programme. (c) World Maritime Organisation (d) United Nations Environmental and World Maritime Organisation both" 11. On perusal of the material produced by learned counsel for the petitioner of Wikipedia and iPCC, as per the guidelines that the answer best suitable should be the correct answer, the expert's Committee has recorded its opinion by enclosing certain material in that support. Thus, the material placed by learned counsel for the petitioner cannot be treated to be best evidence over the material relied upon by the expert's Committee to arrive at the conclusion holding the option "D" to be the correct answer of question No.58. 12. There were several objections in regard to all four options given in respect of question No.58. The expert's Committee of six members considered the objections and found that option "D" is the correct answer of question No.58. 12. There were several objections in regard to all four options given in respect of question No.58. The expert's Committee of six members considered the objections and found that option "D" is the correct answer of question No.58. There was some quarrel on the said question, therefore, a Seven Member's Committee was constituted, who also affirmed the report of the Six Members Expert's Committee holding that the option "D" is the correct answer of the said question. 13. In regard to the controversy that whether while exercising judicial powers the courses are open to the Courts to over step their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts, as Judges are not and cannot be expert in all fields. 14. In the present case, even before publishing the first list of key answers, the Commission had got the key answers moderated on the basis of report submitted by two expert Committees; one of six members and other of seven members. Objections were also invited and then the Committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise, the Committee recommended that option "D" is the correct answer of question No.58. Thus, it cannot be presumed that these Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which examiners were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the Courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is better or more correct. 15. In the case of U.P. Public Service Commission (Supra), the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: "11. We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in such matters: (Ran Vijay Singh case, SCC p. 369) "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. 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. 32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination - whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the court; whether they will get admission in a college or university or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers." 14. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers." 14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts." 16. In view of the ratio of the judgment relied upon and on perusal of the material produced by learned Senior Counsel for the respondent-Commission, I am of the view that the answer of question No.58 given by the Expert's Committee is the correct answer. 17. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition lacks merit and is hereby dismissed. 18. The record produced by the respondent-Commission is returned back in the open Court to Sri Ashok Shukla, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.