JUDGMENT : Madhuresh Prasad, J. The writ petitioners in these batch of writ petitions have approached this Court being aggrieved by rejection of their candidature in the selection process conducted by the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission). 64th Bihar Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the respondent Commission is in issue in the instant proceedings, for which advertisement was issued on 02.08.2018 for filling up total 1465 vacancies in different posts under the Government of Bihar. 2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant writ proceedings is that the petitioners applied for consideration in the process of selection. Altogether there were 4,71,145 applicants. The process of selection comprised of an objective preliminary examination comprising of 150 multiple choice questions carrying one mark each. Successful candidates to the tune of ten times the number of vacancies were to be selected on the basis of objective preliminary examination for writing the mains subjective examination. 3. The Commission for the purpose of evaluation had got prepared a model answer key by the question setters. After the preliminary examination, the model answer key was uploaded on the website on 26.12.2018 and objections were invited from the candidates who participated in the selection process. Objections submitted before the last date i.e. 07.01.2019 were considered by the expert committee constituted by respondent Commission. The expert committee modified/corrected the model answer key in respect of eight questions. In respect of three questions expert committee was of the opinion that correct answer options were not available or that the questions answers were likely to cause confusion to examinees and on such grounds three questions were deleted from the process of evaluation. The report of the expert committee, was thereafter approved by the Full Commission in its meeting dated 31.1.2019. Accordingly, answer sheets were evaluated. Result was published on 23.2.2019 declaring 19109 candidates successful in the general category who had secured the cut off marks, i.e. 97 or more. 4. The petitioners herein have not been declared successful in the examination. Admittedly all of them have secured between 1-5 marks less than cut off marks 97. 5. A joint petition was again filed by several candidates thereafter before the Chairman of the respondent Commission raising the issue regarding correctness of model answer uploaded by the Commission on the basis of which the evaluation had been done. The Chairman thereafter reconstituted the expert committee. 5. A joint petition was again filed by several candidates thereafter before the Chairman of the respondent Commission raising the issue regarding correctness of model answer uploaded by the Commission on the basis of which the evaluation had been done. The Chairman thereafter reconstituted the expert committee. Model answers were thus reconsidered for the second time. The reconstituted expert committee found no error or mistake in the model answer approved by the earlier expert committee. 6. Some of the candidates, who have not been declared successful in the preliminary test, are petitioners in the instant writ proceedings. It is their case that model answer key on the basis of which evaluation has been done was incorrect. It is submitted that they can demonstrate that wrong has been committed in preparation of the model answer key. The wrong options has been considered to be the correct answer in the model answer key in respect of some questions. Another infirmity alleged in the model answer key is that questions have been deleted even though correct answer options were available. By raising such grievance they submit that on account of glaring defects in the model answer key which they have urged can be demonstrated as being wrong, the result published by the Commission for the preliminary examination cannot be sustained. They have submitted that evaluation in respect of such questions is to their prejudice as they had marked the answer option which was correct, however since the option marked by the petitioners were not the correct answer as per the model answer key they have wrongly been deprived of marks for such questions. It is also the submission of petitioners in some of the cases that questions which have been deleted by the expert committee contained the correct answer option. The petitioners had also marked the correct answer. Having devoted time for answering such questions they have suffered prejudice by deletion of such questions since by attempting such questions they have lost time in the examination and suffered due to non grant of marks in respect of the same. 7. The petitioners, in order illustrate that the model answer key which formed the basis of evaluation did not contain the correct answer options have relied upon material, which according to them are authoritative text and government publication. 7. The petitioners, in order illustrate that the model answer key which formed the basis of evaluation did not contain the correct answer options have relied upon material, which according to them are authoritative text and government publication. The options declared correct by the expert body is in conflict with such authoritative text and government publications and as such it is submitted that the petitioners could not have been deprived of marks for such questions, when answers marked by the petitioners were correct as per authoritative text and government publication. 8. It would be relevant to take note of the fact that the same 150 questions were asked from all the appearing candidates at the preliminary test. The same were arranged/numbered in four different ways in 4 sets namely set 'A', 'B', 'C' & 'D', to rule out use of unfair means at the examination centre. Copy of set 'B' of the final/corrected model answer key has been placed on record by the Commission as Annexure C to its counter affidavit. 9. This Court would make a note that the counter affidavit filed by the Commission is common in all the cases. 10. Referring to question nos. 15, 41, 69, 84, 100, 107, 113, 119, 133 and 134 of set 'B', it is submitted that model answers for the same are incorrect. It is also submitted that question paper had the correct answer option for question numbers 118 and 122 of set 'B' and the same have wrongly been deleted. 11. Referring to the authoritative text and government publication Counsels appearing in the various cases have strenuously urged that the model answer key does not provide the correct answer for the above noted questions. One of the questions, on which all the petitioners have laid emphasis is question No. 133 in the model answer key (Annexure F). The question and model answer provided for the same are being reproduced for consideration:- " Where did Kunwar Singh join the Rebellion of 1857 against the British? (A) Arrah (B) Patna (C) Bettiah (D) Varanasi (E) None of the above/More than one of the above." Model Answer: Q. No. 133-In 1857, Babu Kunwar Singh was in contact with sepoys at Dinapore and even sent emissaries to them to say that he had consented to lead them (K.K. Dutta, Pg 96-99). (A) Arrah (B) Patna (C) Bettiah (D) Varanasi (E) None of the above/More than one of the above." Model Answer: Q. No. 133-In 1857, Babu Kunwar Singh was in contact with sepoys at Dinapore and even sent emissaries to them to say that he had consented to lead them (K.K. Dutta, Pg 96-99). Thereafter the sepoys went to Arrah where they were joined by Kunwar Singh (P 92). The implication is that Kunwar Singh led the mutiny from Dinapore near Patna, but physically joined them at Arrah. Therefore the correct answer would be (B)." 12. The petitioners have straneously urged that the model answer key in respect of the said question is wrong. It is their submission that even going by reasoning given by the experts only possible answer would be "Arrah". The expert committee has wrongly provided answer to be "Patna" in the model answer key. 13. Another question on which great emphasis was laid was question No. 84 from Question "A' series which is as follows:- "114. Bihar as an Indian State was formed in (A) 1911 (B) 1912 (C )1936 (D) 2000 (E) None of the above/More than one of the above. Model answer: "The Province of Orissa was separated from Bihar and Orissa in 1936 and declared a separate province in Govt. of India Act 1935 which came into force in 1936. When the Constitution of India was adopted in 1950, the same area was named Bihar State Instead of Bihar Province. Hence Correct answer would be (C). 14. From bare perusal of the expert opinion and reasoning the same does not call for any interference. 15. In respect of question No. 41, objection to its deletion as per report of the expert committee is clearly unfounded. Question No. 41is:- "In which city/State was air pollution control system 'VAYU' installed in September 2018? (A) Chennai (B) Amritsar (C) Delhi (D) Varanasi (E) None of the above/More than one of the above. Model Answer: "This question was correctly deleted as it was wrong. The official spelling is WAYU and not VAYU as given in the question. The spelling of capital noun cannot be disputed on grounds of grammer, logic or publication in media." 16. The question was in respect of installation of Air Pollution Control System which officially is spelled "WAYU". The answer however referred to the same system as "VAYU". The official spelling is WAYU and not VAYU as given in the question. The spelling of capital noun cannot be disputed on grounds of grammer, logic or publication in media." 16. The question was in respect of installation of Air Pollution Control System which officially is spelled "WAYU". The answer however referred to the same system as "VAYU". Such error in spelling has rightly been relied upon by the expert to delete the question. The same could not have been allowed to continue on the basis of any logic or publication in the media. 17. The other objection regarding wrong deletion of question No. 122 by the expert committee is also clearly unfounded. Question No. 122 is : "The Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar was confined within the walls of the Red Fort. He had no power on outside territory. The question asks " It is said" which is vague and uncertain. The question may be deleted." 18. The question is about the extent of empire of the Mughal Emperor Bahadur Shah Zafar. The expected answer is with reference to a very vague and uncertain basis i.e. "it is said". In view of the manner in which the question has been framed the expert committee has rightly concluded that the question is a vague question as it does not specify as to with reference to which authoritative text or person the expression "it is said" has been understood by the examinees. The question has rightly been deleted. 19. Counsel appearing for the petitioners in support of their submissions have relied upon certain decision of the Apex Court. They have placed heavy reliance on the decision in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357 . They have laid emphasis on para 18, 30, 30.2 and 35 of the said decision. The judgment in the case of Rajesh Kumar vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690 has also been relied upon by the petitioners' Counsel. They submitted that the Apex Court has not mandated the "hands of approach". On the basis of questions brought by way of illustration before this Court and the model answer key for the same, they submitted that errors in the model answer key are glaring and cannot be denied or disputed. They submitted that the Apex Court has not mandated the "hands of approach". On the basis of questions brought by way of illustration before this Court and the model answer key for the same, they submitted that errors in the model answer key are glaring and cannot be denied or disputed. In respect of the answer which has been taken note of in the instant order by way of illustration they would further submit that even as per text book relied upon by the Commission the model answer is wrong. The wrong demonstrated by the petitioners constitute a material error in terms of para 30.2 of the judgment in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra). 20. Counsels have also relied upon decision of the Apex Court in the case of High Court of Tripura vrs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee, 2019 2 PLJR 114 (SC), decision of Division Bench of this Court in the case of Akshay Lal Pandit & Ors. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors., as also recent decision by a Single Judge of this Court in the case of Ashish Kumar Pathak & Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar through its Chief Secretary & Ors. in the proceedings arising out of CWJC No. 3670 of 2019. 21. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore, appearing for the respondent Commission, has submitted that the answer considered correct as per model answer key provided a uniform yardstick for assessing all the candidates. None of the petitioners can contend that they have been evaluated on a different yardsticks than those who have qualified at the preliminary test. He has further submitted that the Commission has in the 64th combined competitive examination taken more than abundant precaution so as to avoid such disputes being raised by the candidates and to ensure that a fair and transparent evaluation is done. The Commission had duly published the marks on its website and invited objections from the candidates. Objections were duly considered by the expert committee constituted for the said purpose. It is only thereafter that the result of the preliminary test were declared. Even after publication of result on 23.2.2019, on objections being received, the Chairman in order to rule out such disputes being raised reconstituted the expert committee to reconsider and revisit the objections/suggestions submitted by candidates. It is only thereafter that the result of the preliminary test were declared. Even after publication of result on 23.2.2019, on objections being received, the Chairman in order to rule out such disputes being raised reconstituted the expert committee to reconsider and revisit the objections/suggestions submitted by candidates. Based on such objections/suggestions 25 questions were reconsidered/ revisited by the expert committee by referring to the reliable source/evidence. The expert committee in spite of such reconsideration found no error/mistake. It is after such thorough exercise that model answer key was finalised for evaluation of the candidates. 22. Because some candidates, referring to some texts or government publications contended that model answer key is wrong, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not exercise its jurisdiction. He submits that opinion of the two expert committees based on authoritative and reliable source/evidence should be preferred as against the opinion of the candidates based on their claimed authoritative text and government publication. He submits that parameters for evaluation are fixed and uniform on the basis of the model answer key for all the candidates. On the basis of same parameters others have succeeded in the process. He also submits that this Court should not venture to examine as to which answer for which question ought to be correct; and on the basis of which text or government publication. The issues settled by the expert committees comprising of academicians should be taken to be correct so as to ensure finality in the process of examination/selection. If this Court ventures to examine the claims made by the candidates on different text and government publications then the process of selection would become endless. The Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution should confine its exercise of judicial review to the process. 23. In support of his submissions he has relied upon decisions in the case of Ravindra Kumar Singh vs. High Court of Judicature at Patna & Ors., (2016) 1 PLJR 865 (Para 43, 46, 49, 51, 52 and 54), Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs Mukesh Thakur & Anr., (2010) 6 SCC 759 (para 20), Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Para 30, 31, 32 & 35), U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254 (para 13). 24. Vs. State of U.P. & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357 (Para 30, 31, 32 & 35), U.P. Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh, (2018) 7 SCC 254 (para 13). 24. In relation to deletion of three question he submits that the same effected to all candidates and that no particular candidate can raise the grievance as the three questions have been deleted for everyone. In this connection he relies upon a decision in the case of Anshu Ranjan Vs. State of Bihar through the Chief Secretary & Ors., (2019) 1 PLJR 1055 (para 3). He has laid great emphasis on decision in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) which has recently been taken note of and considered by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Kunal Vs. State of Bihar in LPA No. 1522 of 2018 on 29.1.2019. 25. Referring to the judgments cited at the bar, learned Senior Counsel representing the Commission submits that this Court should refrain from examining the correctness of the model answer key as this Court is not a super expert. 26. Having said so, he has made submissions in respect of questions No. 133 noted hereinabove to submit that the answer option "Patna" as opined by the expert should not be interferred with. As per the expert committee the answer was to indicate not physical joining of Babu Kunwar Singh based on which the candidates claimed answer to be at "Arrah". The expert committee has rightly considered "Patna" to be the correct answer as Veer Kunwar Singh joined the rebellion in 1857 against the British as he was in contact with Sepoy at Dinapore and even sent messeries expressing his consent to lead them at Dinapore, which is in Patna. The effect of his physically joining subsequently at Arrah was rightly not considered to be the correct answer by the expert committee, which in no manner can be treated to be a possible correct answer as per the expert committee. View of the expert committee based on such valid consideration, in opinion of this Court, does not call for any interference. 27. View of the expert committee based on such valid consideration, in opinion of this Court, does not call for any interference. 27. Having considered the rival submission of the parties and the various judgments cited at the Bar, this Court would observe that submission of the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Commission that this Court should refrain from interferring in such matters has to be considered in light of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and the later judgment of the Apex Court, considering the same, i.e. In the case of High Court of Tripura (supra). 28. After considering the law in the case of Mukesh Thakur (supra), in para 18 of the said judgment that complete hands off approach, or no interference approach has not been suggested, the Apex Court has highlighted a few significant conclusions in para 30 of the judgment in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) which reads as follows:- 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 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 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 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. 29. Para 31 & 32 of the said judgment are also important for the instant case and as such are being reproduced:- "31. 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. 29. Para 31 & 32 of the said judgment are also important for the instant case and as such are being reproduced:- "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 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. 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." 30. On consideration of the law laid down in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), Apex Court in the case of High Court of Tripura (supra) has considered the scope and limits for exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India by Writ Courts in examination matters. This Court would consider it useful to quote paragraphs 20-22 which read as follows:- "20. 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. 21. 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? 21. 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. 22. We would understand therefore the conclusion in paragraph 30.2 which we have extracted from the judgment in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh, (2018) 2 SCC 357 only in the aforesaid light. We have already noticed that in V.S. Achuthan v. Mukesh Thakurs case, (2010) 6 SCC 759 , a two Judge Bench in paragraph 26 after survey of the entire case law has also understood the law to be that in the absence of any provision the Court should not generally direct revaluation." 31. Errors in the model answer keys alleged by the petitioners have to be considered within the law as laid down by the Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and High Court of Tripura (supra) taken note of above. 32. Model answers disputed by the petitioners have been examined by this Court. On the touch stone of the standards of scrutiny in respect of such academic matters specified in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) this Court finds that the opinion of the expert body constituted for examining and re-examining the model answers, does not require any interference. 33. The action of the Commission in view of the consideration hereinabove cannot be said to be such so as to cast any doubts on the bonafide of the exercise adopted by them. The model answer key has been revised/revisited twice by two expert committees comprising of academicians. This Court in an effort to allow the petitioners to demonstrate a wrong or material error has also examined some questions and model answers by way of illustration taken note of hereinabove. The strenuous submissions made on behalf of the petitioners however does not reveal any such material error in the model answers. The view taken by the expert committee is a possible correct view. The strenuous submissions made on behalf of the petitioners however does not reveal any such material error in the model answers. The view taken by the expert committee is a possible correct view. Merely because the candidates feel otherwise or the Counsels are arguing that another view is possible in respect of model answer on the basis of some text or government publication, this Court would not interfere with the model answer key. 34. Having regard to the enormity of the exercise and abundant precaution exercised by the Commission and the fact that model answer key has been reviewed/ visited twice, this Court placing reliance on the decision in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) would prefer the view of the expert committee. 35. This Court has examined in detail the model answers to consider the claim of the petitioners regarding model answers being wrong. Petitioners have not been able to make out any rare or exceptional case and have failed to demonstrate that material errors has been committed, so as to interfere in the result published or to issue any directions in favour of the petitioners. 36. Writ petitioners are dismissed.