JUDGMENT : With the consent of the parties, hearing of the matter has been done through video conferencing and there is no complaint whatsoever regarding audio and visual quality. 2. The instant writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking therein the following directions :- (i) For issuance of an appropriate writ/order/direction commanding upon the respondents to produce the petitioner’s answer sheet of Paper-III, the Mains Examination conducted for appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission pursuant to Advertisement No.12/2018; (ii) Upon production of the above answer sheet, a further writ / order / direction be issued commanding upon the respondents to show cause as to why there has been interpolation in the aforesaid and how the petitioner has been awarded 56 marks instead of 62 marks; (iii) If no cause or insufficient cause is shown, a writ/order/direction be issued particularly a writ or in the nature of mandamus commanding upon the respondents to forthwith award 62 marks to the petitioner in Paper-III of the Mains Examination conducted for appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission pursuant to Advertisement No.12/2018 and consequently revise/amend/alter the recommendation letter no. 519 dated 26.02.2020 issued by the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission by including the name of the petitioner in the revised merit list / recommendation and a consequential direction also be issued to the respondent State of Jharkhand to consider and appoint the petitioner with all consequential benefits to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division) according to her merit position. 3. The brief facts of the case as per the pleading made in the writ petition read as under :- The writ petitioner had participated in the selection process for appointment of Civil Judge (Junior Division) conducted by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission, hereinafter referred as JPSC, pursuant to Advertisement No.12/2018. After the results were declared, the writ petitioner did not find herself in the merit list despite her assessment that she had done fairly well in the examination, and accordingly exercised her right to inspect the answer sheets. After the results were declared, the writ petitioner did not find herself in the merit list despite her assessment that she had done fairly well in the examination, and accordingly exercised her right to inspect the answer sheets. Upon inspection she found that in the answer sheet relating to Paper-III marking was done in red ink and the marks awarded in red ink totals to 62 but there was interpolation in black ink by which marks awarded to her in some of the answers were reduced and the total after such reduction / interpolation came down to 56. The writ petitioner contends that due to reduction of 06 marks, her name was not recommended by the JPSC as the cut off marks was 263.33 whereas the writ petitioner had been awarded a total of 262 marks after such reduction/interpolation in marks in Paper-III and thus, if the answer sheet is found to be interpolated or it is found that her marks have been reduced unlawfully or illegally, then the 06 marks should be added to the total marks of the writ petitioner and in that circumstances, she would be recommended and consequently appointed to the post of Civil Judge (Junior Division). 4. Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, has vehemently submitted that the action of the respondent-JPSC is absolutely improper and illegal in reducing 06 marks in Paper-III lowering it down from 62 to 56 without and rhyme or reason, in consequence thereof the writ petitioner could not find place in the list of recommended candidates by the JPSC and hence the present writ petition. 5. Mr. Sanjay Piprawall, learned counsel appearing for the respondent – JPSC has submitted that the fact of this case pertains to reduction in marks by the Chief Examiner in pursuance to the conferment of power by general guideline. He, by referring to the answer sheet, has submitted that the marks awarded by the Examiner has been deleted by the Chief Examiner by putting his counter-signature and thereafter exercising the power of Chief Examiner, marks in some of the answers have been reduced and, therefore, it cannot be said that there is any malice or ulterior motive and in that view of the matter, since there is no merit in the writ petition, the same may be dismissed. 6. 6. This Court had heard the learned counsel for the parties on 04.11.2020 and considering the nature of dispute involved, had directed the respondent – JPSC to produce the answer sheet of Paper-III to reach out to the rightful conclusion as to whether allegation of interpolation is genuine or not? The order dated 04.11.2020 reads as under :- “02 / Dated : 04.11.2020 Heard Mr. Indrajit Sinha, learned counsel for the writ petitioner, Mr. Sanjoy Piprawall, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Public Service Commission as well as Mr. Piyush Chitresh, learned A.C. to A.G. for the State. It appears from paragraph no.6 of the writ petition that the writ petitioner on having perused her answer sheets relating to Paper-III has come to a conclusion that there are certain interpolations in black ink whereby the marks awarded to her in some of the answers were reduced and the total marks after such reduction/interpolation came down to 56 whereas in red ink her given marks were 62. It is further contended that due to the reduction or interpolation of those six marks she could not succeed in the examination. This Court cannot sit in appeal to re-evaluate the marks given by the examiner. However, since very very serious allegation of interpolation has been made in paragraph no. 6, we would be directing the Jharkhand Public Service Commission to produce the answer sheets of the writ petitioner relating to Paper-III for perusal of this Court under sealed cover. The necessary guidelines or instructions available for adopting the mechanism for examining the papers should also be provided to us under such sealed cover. Put up this matter on 26th November, 2020.” 7. In pursuance of the aforesaid order, the answer sheet along with the guideline formulated by the JPSC for evaluation of the marks and the mark-sheet have been produced in sealed cover. The sealed cover has been opened in open Court in on-line court proceeding by displaying it over the monitor of the computer set. This Court has closely scrutinized the guideline formulated by the JPSC for assessing the marks as also the reduction of marks from 62 to 56 and the mark-sheet. The sealed cover has been opened in open Court in on-line court proceeding by displaying it over the monitor of the computer set. This Court has closely scrutinized the guideline formulated by the JPSC for assessing the marks as also the reduction of marks from 62 to 56 and the mark-sheet. We have found from the general guideline formulated for evaluation through Examiner/Chief Examiner being confidential, wherein the Chief Examiner has been given independent power to re-evaluate the answer sheet of such candidates who secure maximum marks and further, even in the special circumstances if the marks secured by one or the other candidate are above the average or excess to the fixed proportion by the Commission, the same is required to be examined by the Chief Examiner. Thus, it is evident that system for re-evaluation of the answer sheet has also been vested upon the Chief Examiner. The said general guideline is applicable uniformly with respect to the answer sheet of all the candidates. Further, we have also found from the answer-sheet that due “Bar-code” was given that reflects the policy decision of the JPSC to maintain confidentiality so that unfairness in awarding the marks be avoided. It further appears that in order to maintain the confidentiality of the assessment of the answer sheet, Examiner would be provided with a code which shall not be used for making any communication through that code with the commission and the said code will not be disclosed to any person. Further, no relation certificate and eligibility certificate or identity will be submitted to the Commission. We have also perused the answer-sheet along with the mark-sheet, which is in a separate evaluation sheet, wherefrom it is evident that earlier the marks has been assessed by the Examiner as 62 but it has been reduced to 56. We, on scrutiny of the answer-sheet, have found that the Examiner has assessed the total marks to the extent of 62 but in some of the answer the marks have been reduced by the Chief Examiner by deleting the marks assessed by the Examiner by putting counter-signature and in consequence thereof, the marks have been reduced from 62 to 56. 8. The instant writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground of allegation of interpolation/reduction. 8. The instant writ petition has been filed mainly on the ground of allegation of interpolation/reduction. We have found from the perusal of answer-sheet that the reduction of marks cannot be said to be an interpolation as because interpolation means “to alter or corrupt by inserting new or foreign matter” but we have found that the Chief Examiner has deleted the number assessed by the Examiner in some of the answers of the writ petitioner by putting his counter-signature in black ink and reduced it to some lesser marks and hence, the same cannot be in the nature of alter or corrupt by inserting new or foreign matter. However, there is reduction in the marks but the question herein is that when a general guideline has been issued by the JPSC conferring power also to the Chief Examiner to re-assess the marks assessed by the Examiner and which is by way of uniform application for all the candidates, the same cannot be said to have without jurisdiction of the Chief Examiner. 9. This Court by calling upon the answer-sheet as per the relief sought for under prayer No.1(i) is of the view that there is no interpolation in the marks and hence, the second relief sought for under prayer No. 1(ii) seeking therein a direction upon the respondents to show cause as to why there has been interpolation in the answer-sheet and how the petitioner has been awarded 56 marks instead of 62 marks, the nature of reduction being not by way of interpolation, no such direction can be given. Further, this Court has considered the proposition of law settled by Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others [ (2018) 2 SCC 357 ] wherein it has been laid down that in absence of any rule/regulation for re-evaluation of the answer-sheet and further the marks allotted by Expert cannot be substituted by a court of law. In view thereof, the court of law, being not an expert in the subject, is not expected to superimpose its opinion upon the opinion expressed by the expert and keeping the aforesaid proposition of law into consideration, the relief sought for under prayer No.1(ii) pertaining to “how the petitioner has been awarded 56 marks instead of 62 marks”, no direction can be passed by this Court since 62 marks has been assessed in the subject by the Examiner which has been reduced to 56 marks by the Chief Examiner who has acted in pursuance to the general guidelines formulated by the JPSC. Since no direction can be passed under prayer No.1(ii), in consequence thereof no direction can be passed by this Court with respect to relief sought for under prayer No.1(iii). 10. This Court deems it fit and proper to consider the judgment of Hon'ble Apex Court rendered in the case of Sanjay Singh and Another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another [ (2007) 3 SCC 720 ] and found therefrom at paragraph 23 that proposition has been laid down to evolve a procedure to ensure uniformity inter se the examiners so that the effect of “examiner subjectivity” or “examiner variability” is minimised. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. The procedure adopted to reduce examiner subjectivity or variability is known as moderation. Therefore, the judgment rendered in the case of Sanjay Singh and Another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another (Supra) deals with the issue about the method of moderation which view has again been reiterated by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta through Registrar and Others [ (2015) 11 SCC 395 ] but the fact and the allegation which laid the writ petitioner to file this writ petition is not with respect to the moderation as would appear from the pleading made in the writ petition wherein the allegation pertaining to interpolation is the main ground but as we have observed hereinabove, after going through the answer-sheet of the subject, there is no interpolation, rather, acting on the basis of the general guideline, marks of some of the answers have been reduced by the Chief Examiner and hence, it is not a case of moderation in order to bring considerable uniformity and consistency, rather, the JPSC has formulated a confidential guideline for Examiners/Chief Examiners, the same being applicable uniformly to all the candidates, therefore, the fact of the case in hand cannot be termed as reduction of marks by way of moderation. In that view of the matter, the judgment rendered either in the case of Sanjay Singh and Another v. U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad and Another (Supra) and Sujasha Mukherji v. High Court of Calcutta through Registrar and Others (Supra) is not applicable in the facts of the case. 11. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect of the matter, is of the view that the writ petitioner has failed to make out a case for issuance of positive direction pursuant to relief sought for under prayer Nos. 1(ii) and 1(iii). Hence, the writ petition fails and is dismissed. 12. The answer-sheet, marks-sheet and the general guideline have been directed to be sealed by the office of this Court and accordingly the same has been sealed and directed to be returned to the learned counsel for the JPSC forthwith.