JUDGMENT : 1. Heard, Shri Sandeep Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner, Shri Shashank Bhasin, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4, Shri Anand Dwivedi, learned counsel for the opposite parties no.1 & 3 and Shri Savitra Vardhan Singh, learned counsel for the opposite party no.2. 2. This petition has been filed for a direction to the respondent no.4 to consider the answers given by the petitioner of question nos.19 and 148 and revise the final answer key and Score Card of the petitioner, published by the National Testing Agency on 16.10.2020 and for passing the New Answer Key with New Score Card considering representation filed by the petitioner on 27.09.2020. 3. The brief facts of the case are that the National Testing Agency invited online applications for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG)-2020. The petitioner had applied against the public notice. The examination was initially scheduled on 03.05.2019 through public notice dated 02.12.2019 but due to pandemic of Covid-19, the same was rescheduled from 26.07.2020 to 13.09.2020. The National Testing Agency issued the proposed advance answer keys for all the sets of question papers on 26.09.2020 and invited the objections vide notification dated 27.09.2020. In response thereof the petitioner had submitted objections in regard to question nos.19 and 148 of booklet no.G-4 and deposited the requisite fees. But without considering the objections, the final answer key was published. The answers were not changed and the result was also declared. Hence the petitioner approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner had appeared in the National Eligibility cum Entrance Test (NEET) (UG)-2020 and submitted objections on the advanced answer key in regard to question nos.19 and 148 on 27.09.2020 and deposited Rs.2,000/-, the requisite fees for the same. Thereafter the final answer key and the result was declared on 16.10.2020 without considering the objections of the petitioner as the final answer key does not show any change in the answer of question nos.19 and 148. As per opposite party no.4 the answer of the question no.19 was 1G1 Phase while as per the petitioner it should have been 4-M Phase of booklet no.G-4. The answer of question no.148 was shown as 3Collusion Frequency while as per the petitioner it should have been 1-Reaction. 5. As per opposite party no.4 the answer of the question no.19 was 1G1 Phase while as per the petitioner it should have been 4-M Phase of booklet no.G-4. The answer of question no.148 was shown as 3Collusion Frequency while as per the petitioner it should have been 1-Reaction. 5. He further submitted that the opposite party no.4, though has disclosed in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit that the objection was considered by the subject experts but the same was neither communicated to the petitioner nor specific reasons have also been given for rejection of the objections of the petitioner. The answers which have been examined and approved by the subject experts could not have been for the question nos.19 and 148 which were in G-4 booklet and if the same answers are correct then the questions should have been constructed in a different manner, which have been disclosed by the petitioner in paragraph-17 of the rejoinder affidavit. 6. On the basis of above, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the objections of the petitioner has not been considered in accordance with law. He relied on paragraph-22 of the judgment and order dated 10.08.2017 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Saumitra Gigodia Vs. Union of India and others; in Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.28568 of 2017. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 submitted that in response to the proposed answer key, 9760 objections were received from the candidates including the petitioner. The said objections were placed before the respective subject experts who were Professors of IIT's and reputed universities for verification. The concerned subject experts, after examining the objections/challenges, considered each and every aspect of the objections/challenges and after examining carefully neither found any merit in the objections nor any discrepancy in the provisional answer key to the questions including question nos.19 and 148 of booklet no.G-4 and rejected the objections/challenges received from the candidates including 549 candidates made in G-4 series. Accordingly the final answer key was published on 16.10.2020 and the result was declared accordingly. 8. He further submitted that it was provided in clause 15 (2) (d) under Chapter 15 of the Information Bulletin of Neet (UG)-2020 that no individual candidate will be informed about the acceptance/non-acceptance of his/her challenge. Accordingly the final answer key was published on 16.10.2020 and the result was declared accordingly. 8. He further submitted that it was provided in clause 15 (2) (d) under Chapter 15 of the Information Bulletin of Neet (UG)-2020 that no individual candidate will be informed about the acceptance/non-acceptance of his/her challenge. Therefore, the same is not required to be communicated to the petitioner as it was already provided in the information bulletin. 9. He further submitted that the subject experts have scrutinized the challenges to the question nos.19 and 148 and opined that the answers are correct relying on NCERT, Class-11, Biology Text Book which has also been relied by the petitioner and details have been given in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit. 10. He, relying on a latest judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court dated 07.12.2020 in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others; in Civil Appeal Nos.3649-3650 of 2020 submitted that once the objections have been considered by the subject experts challenge to the same is not maintainable. The writ-petition is liable to be dismissed. 11. I have considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 12. The petitioner had applied for National Eligibility-cum-Entrance Test (NEET) (UG)-2020 against the invitation of applications by the National Testing Agency. The entrance test was initially scheduled on 03.09.2020 which was rescheduled from 26.07.2020 to 13.09.2020. The petitioner appeared in the test. After the test Advance Answer Key for all sets including booklet no.G-4 was published on 26.09.2020 and the objections were invited vide public notice dated 27.09.2020. In response thereof the petitioner submitted her objections against the proposed answers of question nos.19 and 148 and deposited the requisite fees. Thereafter the final answer key was published on 16.10.2020. On the basis of which the result was also declared on the same date. The petitioner, being aggrieved by not change of the answers as objected by the petitioner, have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 13. Thereafter the final answer key was published on 16.10.2020. On the basis of which the result was also declared on the same date. The petitioner, being aggrieved by not change of the answers as objected by the petitioner, have approached this Court by means of the present writ petition. 13. In regard to the submission of learned counsel for the petitioner that the objections raised by the petitioner in regard to the question nos.19 and 148 of booklet no.G-4 have not been considered, learned counsel for the opposite party no.4 submitted that the objections submitted by the petitioner have duly been considered by the subject experts and after scrutinizing the objections to the question nos.19 and 148, the subject experts did not find any merit in the objections or any discrepancy in the provisional answer keys to the said questions and rejected the objections/challenges made by the candidates including the petitioner. The subject experts have given opinion on the basis of NCERT, Class-11 Biology Text Book which has also been relied by the petitioner. The details have been given in paragraph-8 of the counter affidavit, which is extracted below:- "(8) That the contents of paragraph 12 and 13 of the writ petition are not admitted as stated. It is submitted that the Subject Experts have scrutinized the challenges to question no.19 and 148. The Subject Expert did not find any merit in the objection or any discrepancy in the Provisional Answer Keys to the said question and rejected the challenges made by the candidates including the petitioner in G4 Series. It is pertinent to mention here that the Subject Experts opined that "G1" is the correct answer to the question : "some dividing cells exit the cell cycle and enter vegetative inactive stage. This is called quiescent stage (GO). This process occurs at the end of:" and relied upon the page 164 of the NCERT Class XI Biology textbook, which has also relied upon by the petitioner page 105-109 of the writ petition. The Biology NCERT Class XI Book at page 164 (page 109 of the petition) provides that "... these cells that do not divide further exit G1 phage to enter into an inactive stage called quiescent stage (GO) of the cell cycle". The Subject Expert with respect to question no.148 also opined that as Heat of Reaction (reaction Enthalpy) is always measured in Kj/mol. these cells that do not divide further exit G1 phage to enter into an inactive stage called quiescent stage (GO) of the cell cycle". The Subject Expert with respect to question no.148 also opined that as Heat of Reaction (reaction Enthalpy) is always measured in Kj/mol. Therefore, Collusion frequency is correct. In view of the above, it is humbly submitted that the claim of the petitioner is misconceived, highly unfounded and is hence liable to be dismissed at the first instance." 14. In view of above, the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is misconceived and not tenable that the objections have not been considered by the subject experts. While the same have been considered by the Subject Experts, who are Professors from IIT's and reputed Universities as disclosed in paragraph 3(xiv) of the counter affidavit filed on behalf of opposite party no.4. 15. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that if the answers as accepted by the subject experts are true, the questions should have been framed in a different manner which has been disclosed by her in the rejoinder affidavit can not be accepted because it is for the subject experts as to how the questions are to be framed and once the subject experts have examined the objections and came to the conclusion that the objections are not sustainable and proposed answers are the correct answers, this Court can not examine the same over and above the opinion of the subject experts. 16. The judgment and order dated 10.08.2017 passed in the case of Saumitra Gigodia Vs. Union of India and others (Supra) is of no assistance to the petitioner. It provides that where it is found that the answer keys are demonstrably wrong, that is to say, it cannot be such as no reasonable body of men, well versed in the particular subject, would regard it as correct, in that event the Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction and ensure that the error is rectified. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate it. The paragraph-22 of the judgment is extracted below:- "22. The learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to demonstrate it. The paragraph-22 of the judgment is extracted below:- "22. Normally, the Court should be cautious in interfering with the opinion of the expert but where it is found that the answer keys are demonstrably wrong, that is to say, it cannot be such as no reasonable body of men, well versed in the particular subject, would regard it as correct, in that event the Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction and ensure that the error is rectified. 17. It is settled proposition of law that once the objections invited against the proposed answer key have been considered by the subject experts and they do not found any substance in the objections, this Court can not examine the correctness of the questions and the answer key, to come to a conclusion different from that of the subject experts merely because a candidate or some of the candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied by the answers. It is for the subject experts to consider the objections and evaluate as to whether the objections have any substance or not because they have expertise to evaluate or scrutinize the answers. This view is fortified by judgment and order 07.12.2020 passed in Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Another Vs. The State of Rajasthan and Others (Supra) by the Hon'ble Apex Court. The relevant paragraphs 10, 11, 12 and 13 are extracted below:- "10. The point that arises for the consideration of this Court is whether the revised Select List dated 21.05.2019 ought to have been prepared on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The Appellants contend that the Wait List also should be prepared on the basis of the 3rd Answer Key and not on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key. The 2nd Answer Key was released by the RPSC on the 10 basis of the recommendations made by the Expert Committee constituted pursuant to the directions issued by the High Court. Not being satisfied with the revised Select List which included only a few candidates, certain unsuccessful candidates filed Appeals before the Division Bench which were disposed of on 12.03.2019. When the Division Bench was informed that the selections have been finalized on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key, it refused to interfere with the Select List prepared on 17.09.2018. Not being satisfied with the revised Select List which included only a few candidates, certain unsuccessful candidates filed Appeals before the Division Bench which were disposed of on 12.03.2019. When the Division Bench was informed that the selections have been finalized on the basis of the 2nd Answer Key, it refused to interfere with the Select List prepared on 17.09.2018. However, the Division Bench examined the correctness of the questions and Answer Keys pointed by the Appellants therein and arrived at a conclusion that the answer key to 5 questions was erroneous. On the basis of the said findings, the Division Bench directed the RPSC to prepare revised Select List and apply it only to the Appellants before it. 11. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anothers). Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the Expert Committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations 2. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re-evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others held that court should not reevaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows: "31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing reevaluation 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. 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 13 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." 12. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Others Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Others. In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert 4 committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case. 13. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel." 18. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the opinion of the subject experts has not been provided to the petitioner is misconceived and not tenable in view of expressed provision made in the Information Bulletin (NEET) (UG) 2020 in clause 15 (2)(d) which provides that "No individual candidate will be informed about the acceptance/non-acceptance of his/her challenge". Otherwise also if it is accepted the process of selection may take very long time. 19. In view of above, this Court is of the considered opinion that once the subject experts have examined the objections of the petitioner and opined that the proposed answers are the correct answers and the final Answer Key has been issued accordingly, this Court can not examine the correctness of the answers, or framing of questions. The writ petition is misconceived and lacks merit. 20. It accordingly, dismissed. No order as to costs.