ORDER : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of the common Oral Orders dated 2nd April, 2019 passed by the learned Single Judge in the respective writ petitions. 2. By the order under challenge, the learned Single Judge has issued an ad interim direction that the petitioners/respondents herein shall be allowed to submit their online forms for the scheduled main examination. A further direction has been issued to the appellant-GPSC to accept such forms and further permit the petitioner/respondents herein to appear at the main examination. The GPSC has been directed to keep the results of the main examination in a sealed cover, to be produced before the Court, to be subjected till further orders. 3. The petitions have been kept for hearing on 1.05.2019. 4. These appeals arise in the following facts: 4.1 An advertisement No.55/2018-19 came to be published by the appellant-GPSC on 15.9.2018, inviting Online applications for the post of Deputy Section Officer (Secretriat), Deputy Section Officer (GPSC), Deputy Section Officer (Legislature) and Deputy Mamlatdar (Revenue Department). The last date for filling on-line forms was 1st October, 2018. As per the advertisement, screening (preliminary test) was to be held on 16th December, 2018. The respondents-original petitioners had filled the forms and pursuant to call letters, they had appeared in the screening (preliminary test) held on 16th December, 2018. 4.2 There were eight series of question papers - ranging from “A” to “H” and each candidate would get a question paper from anyone of the eight series. The answers were to be submitted in the OMR Sheets given to the candidates. 4.3 In the writ petition, controversy was with regard to the answers of Questions Nos. 16, 49, 73, 144 and 197 of Question Papers “series-E”. The questions were as under :- “16. India ranks ______ in the world in production of sugar”. It is further submitted that, the correct answer to the aforesaid question in “second” i.e. option (C). 49. Following statements is/are true about CPI-W index”. It is further submitted that, the correct answer to the aforesaid question is “both first and second' i.e. option (C). 73. In Gujarat ____ was the capital of Vaghela Dynasty”. It is further submitted that, the correct answer to the aforesaid question is “Patan” i.e. option (A). 144. What is the area of Triangle”. It is further submitted that, the correct answer to the aforesaid question is “both first and second' i.e. option (C). 73. In Gujarat ____ was the capital of Vaghela Dynasty”. It is further submitted that, the correct answer to the aforesaid question is “Patan” i.e. option (A). 144. What is the area of Triangle”. It is further submitted that, the correct answer to the aforesaid question is option (C). 197. The pilgrimage situated near suhdha mata in Rajasthan is an example of _____ Mountains”. It is further submitted that, the correct answer tot he aforesaid question is |”Ghumattakar Mountains i.e. option (C). 4.4 It was the case of the petitioners that a provisional answer key was published on 19th December, 2018 and a final answer key was published on 6.2.2019. The final answer key dated 06.02.2019 contained absolutely incorrect answers, against the fact. The appellant-GPSC, according to the petitioner, ought to have changed and rectified the errors in the answers to the questions, which it did not. The result of preliminary test was published on 21.02.2019, wherein, the petitioners were not selected. Being aggrieved by non-selection, they approached the Court with the following prayer : “Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or directions quashing and setting aside the provisional answer key dated 19.12.2018 so far as answer of question No.73 and 144 of the question paper of series “E” is stated (i.e. question Nos.23 and 174 of the provisional answer key). Final answer key dated 06.02.2019, as well as the Revised Final Answer key dated 21.02.2019 published by respondent – GPSC, so far as answers to the question Nos.16, 49, 73, 144 and 197 are stated and may further be pleased to hold that the correct answers of questions Nos.16, 49, 73, 144 and 197 of the question paper of series “E” are options C, C, A, C and C respectively and not options D,B,C, D and A respectively.” 5. It is in background of such facts that the learned Single Judge passed the aforesaid interim order, which is under challenge. 6. The Gujarat Public Service Commission, through Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate contested and assailed the order of learned Single Judge on the ground that the interim relief granted would amount to allowing the petitions. 7. It is in background of such facts that the learned Single Judge passed the aforesaid interim order, which is under challenge. 6. The Gujarat Public Service Commission, through Mr. Premal Joshi, learned advocate contested and assailed the order of learned Single Judge on the ground that the interim relief granted would amount to allowing the petitions. 7. It was further submitted by learned advocate Mr. Joshi that it is not open for a writ Court to dwell into and sit in appeal over a decision, in the academic matters. He further submitted that pursuant to objections received by the Commission, details of questions were forwarded to the Expert in the subject for opinion. The Expert gave his opinion for the objections received. After receipt of the opinion from the expert in subject, the final answer key was published on 21.02.2019. Mr. Joshi placed the opinion of Expert in a sealed cover before us. We have refrained ourselves from looking into the sealed cover of the Expert. 8. Learned Single Judge relied on the decisions of the Supreme Court, as referred to in para-5 of the order under challenge namely Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta [ (1983) 4 SCC 309 ], Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission [ (2018) 8 SCC 81 ], in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh [ AIR 2018 SC 2861 ]. 9. Reproduction of the relevant questions, which we have in the above paragraphs of this order, would indicate that this Court cannot agree with the submissions of Mr. Joshi that the writ Court should not enter into the domain of academic matters. It is true that in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 , the Court laid down parameters for the writ Courts, which read as under: “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. It is true that in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 , the Court laid down parameters for the writ Courts, which read as under: “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the reevaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2 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 reevaluation 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; 30.3 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; 30.4 (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5 (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” 10. What is evident from the above judgment is that 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, that material error has been committed. However, perusal of the aforesaid question would reveal that in the case of High Court of Tripura through the Registrar General vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, decided by the Supreme Court on 6th February, 2019 in Civil Appeal No.1264 of 2019, the Supreme Court, after having assessed all the judgments on the question of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, has held as under :- “19. The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to demand revaluation as of right could there arise circumstances which leaves the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The question however arises whether even if there is no legal right to demand revaluation as of right could there arise circumstances which leaves the Court in any doubt at all. A grave injustice may be occasioned to a writ applicant in certain circumstances. The case may arise where even though there is no provision for revaluation it turns out that despite giving the correct answer no marks are awarded. No doubt this must be confined to a case where there is no dispute about the correctness of the answer. Further, if there is any doubt, the doubt should be resolved in favour of the examining body rather than in favour of the candidate. The wide power under Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for revaluation in a situation where a candidate despite having giving correct answer and about which there cannot be even slightest manner of doubt, he is treated as having given the wrong answer and consequently the candidate is found disentitled to any marks. 20. Should the second circumstance be demonstrated to be present before the writ court, can the writ court become helpless despite the vast reservoir of power which it possesses? It is one thing to say that the absence of provision for revaluation will not enable the candidate to claim the right of evaluation as a matter of right and another to say that in no circumstances whatsoever where there is no provision for revaluation will the writ court exercise its undoubted constitutional powers? We reiterate that the situation can only be rare and exceptional.” 11. In the present case it is, evident that the controversy is with regard to the correctness of the answers given by the GPSC in the provisional, final as well as revised final answer key. A case may arise where despite the candidate having given correct answer which is not, in the slightest realm of doubt, it is wrong to treat a candidate to be found dis-entitled to any marks. However, this has to be adjudicated at the time of final hearing of the matter, though only in rare or exceptional cases when it is found that a material error has been committed. The case has not revealed such stark facts that there could be no manner of doubt that the answers to the questions could be wrong. 12. However, this has to be adjudicated at the time of final hearing of the matter, though only in rare or exceptional cases when it is found that a material error has been committed. The case has not revealed such stark facts that there could be no manner of doubt that the answers to the questions could be wrong. 12. We make it clear that this is our prima facie view and we are conscious of the fact that by an interim order, the learned Single Judge has permitted the respondents herein to appear in the main examination and it has been further directed that the respondents' result be kept in a sealed cover. More so, further hearing of the writ petition is to take place on 01.05.2019. Moreover, the learned Single Judge has also clarified that submission of the forms by the petitioners and the factum of their appearance in the examination would not create any right or equity in their favour. Therefore, the apprehension of Mr. Joshi, learned advocate for the appellants that the grant of interim relief will amount to allowing the petitions is unfounded. 13. In view of such circumstances, we deem it fit not to entertain these intra-Court appeals, since they arise out of interim order and further hearing of the petitions is take place on 1.05.2019. 14. The Letters Patent Appeals are accordingly dismissed. Since the main matters are disposed of, Civil Applications do not survive. Hence, disposed of accordingly.