ORDER : Arun Bhansali, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to decide petitioner's objection regarding answer of question Nos. 27, 64, 70 & 87 and further direction to issue revised answer key, issue fresh result and cut of marks of the written examination for recruitment on the post of Technical Helper (Electrician) pursuant to the advertisement (Annexure-1). 2. It is, inter alia, indicated in the writ petition that pursuant to the advertisement No. 1/2018-19 for recruitment on the post of Technical Helper issued by respondent Nigam the petitioner being eligible submitted online application form with required documents. Admit cards were issued and the petitioner participated in the written examination. 3. The respondents published first answer key and objections were invited. The petitioner raised objections regarding question Nos. 27, 46, 64, 70, 87 & 91, from which, objections to two questions No. 46 and 91 were considered but objection of the remaining questions have not been considered. The revised answer key was published on 14.09.2018, regarding which, it is submitted that the objections raised have not been considered and thereafter the result has been published by the respondents, wherein, the petitioner obtained 157 marks, whereas, the cut off in petitioner's category is 163 marks. 4. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that answers qua at least 3 questions are demonstrably incorrect and, therefore, the same requires interference by this Court. It was submitted that the petitioner had raised objections regarding question Nos. 27, 70 and 87 and had produced material in support of the objections. However, for no apparent reason, the objections have been rejected and, therefore, the same requires to be corrected and the respondents be directed to revise the answers and the result consequent thereto. 5. The various submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner pertaining to the relevant questions is as under:- "Q. No. -27 Which of the following instruments is/are free from hysteresis and eddy current error? (A) PMMC instruments (B) Dynamometer type instruments (C) Electrostatic instrument (E) Moving iron instrument (E) All of these Correct answer as per petitioner - (B) & (C) both As per Answer Key - (C)" 6. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to certain material placed on record that both answer (B) and answer (C) were correct answers. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to certain material placed on record that both answer (B) and answer (C) were correct answers. Reference in this regard has been placed on certain material which has been placed on record. "Q. No. -70 How many neutral earth pits are there for one transformer in a substation? (A) One (B) Two (C) Three (D) Four (E) Five Correct answer as per petitioner - (B) As per Answer Key - (C)" 7. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to certain material placed on record that answer (B) was correct answer. Reference in this regard has been placed on certain material which has been placed on record. Q. No. -87 Which of the following statements is FALSE about fuse? (A) Fuse is independent of ambient temperature (B) It protects against short circuit (C) Only single pole version is available (D) It works on the electrical and thermals properties of the conducting materials (E) It cannot be used as ON/OFF switch Correct answer as per petitioner - (A) As per Answer Key - (B)" 8. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner with reference to certain material placed on record that answer (A) was correct answer. Reference in this regard has been placed on certain material which has been placed on record. 9. Learned counsel for the petitioner made submissions that once the material as produced on record clearly indicates that the answers as attempted by the petitioner/suggested by the petitioner are correct, the insistence of the respondents in sticking to his own answers is baseless and, therefore, the action on part of the respondents deserves to be quashed and set aside. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner made a further submissions that the petitioner was supplied with the answer sheet as procured from the recruitment agency, which reflects other discrepancies, which has been tabulated vide Annexure-11 and on that count also the action of the respondents requires to be quashed and set aside. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. 11. Learned counsel for the respondent - Corporation vehemently opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner. Submissions were made that once the objections were raised regarding the model answer key, the objections have been examined by the Expert Committee and the Expert Committee has for reasons come to the conclusion that qua the questions sought to be objected by the petitioner, the model answers were correct and did not require any change, the same does not call for any interference. 12. Submissions have also been made that unless the model answers key/revised answer key is shown to be demonstrably incorrect, no interference is called for in the model answer key/revised answer key. 13. With regard to material produced by learned counsel for the petitioner submissions were made that clearly creditable material is available and has been placed on record to support the conclusion reached by the respondents and once even if it is held that two opinions are possible, the petitioner cannot seek benefit merely by raising doubts and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 14. Reliance has been placed on judgment in U.P.P.S.C. & Ors. v. Rahul Singh & Ors. : (2018) 7 SCC 254 . 15. Regarding the submissions made based on the material produced alongwith the additional affidavit it is submitted by learned counsel for the respondent that fresh allegations have been made in the additional affidavit, regarding which, no implication has been indicated and the petitioner was only seeking to raise doubts on the procedure adopted by the respondents, which has no substance. 16. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 17. This Court in Kanhya Lal Sain v. Registrar Examination, R.H.C., 2016(2) RLW 1370 laid down the principles pertaining to the nature of interference in matters of present nature and, inter alia, laid down as under:- "31. The law is clear that if there is a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for the petitioners only, thus, no interference is required. 32. The law is clear that if there is a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for the petitioners only, thus, no interference is required. 32. This has also been settled by the Apex Court that in academic matters, the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own view in preference to those formulated by professional persons possessing expertise and rich experience on the subject and the opinion of the Experts ordinarily cannot be made the subject of judicial scrutiny simply because some authors expressed their views differently in their books or articles on the subject. Interference by the Court in such matters should be in rare and exceptional circumstances, if it is found beyond the realm of doubt that key answer published by the expert is incorrect. At the same time, even if in case there is doubt as to which of the answer is correct then too answer as accepted by the subject expert should be given preference and adhered to. This is necessary to keep the whole system of examination workable and intact and this Court always endeavor to see that examination system is not rendered unworkable by creating doubts and uncertainties. 33. The views and recommendations of a Committee of Experts demand due deference and cannote finality, in absence of bias or malafide, is an unassailable proposition consistently laid, time out of number. The Apex Court in Basavaiah (Dr.) Vs. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 observed in para 21 ad infra:- "21. It is the settled legal position that the courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of an Expert Committee consisting of distinguished experts in the field. In the instant case, the experts had evaluated the qualification, experience and published work of the appellants and thereafter recommendations for their appointment were made. The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture." 34. The Apex Court in Sajeesh Babu K. Vs. N.K. Santhosh & Ors. reported in 2012 (12) SCC 106 further sounded the concordant note in the following terms:- "20. The Division Bench of the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate court on the recommendations made by the country's leading experts in the field of Sericulture." 34. The Apex Court in Sajeesh Babu K. Vs. N.K. Santhosh & Ors. reported in 2012 (12) SCC 106 further sounded the concordant note in the following terms:- "20. It is clear that in a matter of appointment/selection by an Expert Committee/Board consisting of qualified persons in the particular field, normally, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, unless there is any allegation of mala fides against the experts who had constituted the Selection Committee. Admittedly, in the case on hand, there is no allegation of mala fides against the three experts in the Selection Committee. In such circumstances, we are of the view that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of selection of this nature to the experts who are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of the work. In the case on hand, the Expert Committee evaluated the experience certificates produced by the appellant herein, interviewed him by putting specific questions as to direct sale, home delivered products, hospitality/service industry etc. and awarded marks. In such circumstances, we hold that the High Court ought not to have sat as an appellate Court on the recommendations made by the Expert Committee." 35. On the basis of these judgments, following principles can be culled out:- (1) the key answer is correct unless proved to be wrong; (2) judicial review cannot be on the basis of inferential process or process of rationalization; (3) key answer must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong; (4) answer must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct; (5) the Court should not lightly interfere with the opinion expressed by the academic experts; (6) when there is no discrimination in awarding the marks and effective of alleged wrong answer is equally on all the candidates, no interference is warranted; (7) writ Court cannot sit in judgment over those findings and examine the material on record to arrive at its own conclusion as a Court of appeal. 36. 36. It is clear that in a matter of appointment selection by an Expert Committee/Board consisting of qualified persons of their particular field, the courts should always be slow to interfere with the opinions expressed by the experts, unless there is an allegation of malafides against the experts who had constituted the Expert Committee. 37. Indisputably, in the case on hand, there is neither allegation of biasness or malafides against the members of members of Expert Committee nor challenge to the report of the Expert Committee and in such circumstances, we are of the view that it would normally be wise and safe for the courts to leave the decision of this nature to the Experts who are more familiar with the technicalities/nature of work. 38. In the case on hand, the Expert Committee evaluated the Multiple Choice Objective-type model answers and after due deliberation and looking into the objections extensively, of which we have already made reference, and finally arrived to its conclusion that two questions deserves to be deleted and model answers of four questions are required to be changed. The report of Expert Committee has been accepted in toto by the respondents and accordingly final answer key was uploaded on the official website of the respondents on 20.08.2015 and result was declared of all the candidates who have participated in the Preliminary Examination held for the Civil Judge Cadre, pursuant to the Notification dt. 26.04.2015, in terms of Rules, 2010. 39. The views expressed by the Expert Committee, in the case on hand, vis-à-vis the disputed questions/answer key, as has been dilated hereinabove, in our estimate, ought to be accorded due paramountcy and no allegation of bias or malafide or extraneous consideration for collateral objectives has been levelled, and rightly. In the overall factual background and the noted litigational events encompassing the same recruitment process with strikingly common orientations, we are of the unhesitant opinion that the impeachment of the writ petitioners of the final answer key uploaded by the respondent on 20.08.2015 and final declaration of result of Preliminary Examination on 20.08.2015, on any count, does not merit acceptance. 40. In the wake of the above, we are thus of the opinion that the impeachment of the process of holding Preliminary Examination of Civil Judge, 2015 on the counts, as canvassed before us in the present batch of writ petition, is not sustainable in law." 18. 40. In the wake of the above, we are thus of the opinion that the impeachment of the process of holding Preliminary Examination of Civil Judge, 2015 on the counts, as canvassed before us in the present batch of writ petition, is not sustainable in law." 18. Further, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357 , inter alia, laid down 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 statue, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation 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 statue, 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 re-evaluation 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 of exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutions Courts must exercise restraint in such matters: 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 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. 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 interference 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 t he 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." 19. Further in the case of U.P.P.S.C. (supra) following the judgment in the case of Ran Vijay singh (supra) it was reiterated by Hon'ble Supreme Court as under:- "12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of t he key answers. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions." 20. The law laid down is well settled that a candidate is not only required to demonstrate that the answer key is incorrect but also that there is a glaring mistake and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. Further even if in case there is doubt as to which of the answer is correct then too answer as accepted by the subject expert should be given preference and adhered to, which is necessary to keep the whole system of examination workable and intact. 21. This Court having gone through the various objections raised by the petitioner with reference to the material produced on record qua the three questions and having analysed, the response of the respondent Corporation based on the material which was taken into consideration by the Expert Committee while deciding the objections raised to the model answer key, is firmly of this opinion that the plea raised by the petitioner only raises doubt and the same does not in any manner indicate that the answers suggested are demonstrably incorrect. 22. As already noticed, for this Court to interfere with the model answer key/revised answer key, it is necessary that the same has to be shown as demonstrably incorrect and as the petitioner has failed to make out either a case of the answers being demonstrably incorrect and/or that the Expert Committee was biased or acted with mala fide, the decision based on the Expert Committee's opinion by the respondents cannot be faulted. 23. 23. It may also be observed that the nature of questions and objections raised thereto, are such, which can only be examined by an Expert committee and as the Expert Committee has come to a particular conclusion, the same in absence of any clinching material showing the same as palpably incorrect, merely by raising doubts the petitioner cannot succeed. 24. In view thereof, in so far as model answer key and revised answer key are concerned, the same does not call for any interference by this Court. 25. So far as another aspect feebly sought to be raised by the petitioner based on material received in response to his application under Right to Information Act, except for making submission or producing a table, the petitioner has not been able to thereafter indicate the implications of the same and in fact if the plea raised is accepted on face value, the marks of the petitioner would be further reduced and, therefore, the plea raised in this regard also is essentially baseless and does not advance the case of the petitioner. 26. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.