ORDER : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning the validity of the list of candidates called for document verification dated 22.07.2019 pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 for recruitment to the post of Agriculture Supervisor based on their challenge to the revised/final answer key dated 22.07.2019 issued by the respondent- Board pursuant to the written test held by the respondent for appointment to the post of Agriculture Supervisor. 2. It is, inter-alia, indicated in the writ petitions that an advertisement dated 22.07.2019 was issued by the respondents for recruitment to the post of Agriculture Supervisor. The advertisement provided for the procedure for selection and the scheme of written examination alongwith syllabus wherein, the question paper was divided into three parts with fixed number of questions for each part in total 100 with maximum 400 marks i.e. 04 marks for each question. It was also provided that for each wrong answer, 01 mark would be deducted. 3. After the written test was held on 03.03.2019, the preliminary answer key was issued by the respondents, to which the petitioners filed objections. Whereafter the result was declared on 22.07.2019 by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board ('the Board'), whereby 1.5 times candidates of the number of vacancies advertised were called for document verification. At the end of the result, details of set-wise deleted questions were indicated, whereby in all 10 questions were deleted alongwith the formula adopted for calculation of marks. The formula for calculation of marks reads as under :- ^^ÁkIrkad x.kuk dk lw= %& Total Marks of a Candidate= (zigma) of [(RQ x KF)] - 1/3 [(WQ x KF)] Zigma = Sum of Marks in all Sections/Subjects RQ= Right Questions of a Particular Section/Subject KF= Key Factor= Maximum Marks/Total No. of Questions x Total No. of a Particular Section/Subject/Number of Valid Questions of a Particular Section/Subject" 4. The final answer key was also issued alongwith the cut-off marks category-wise for candidates, who were called for document verification. The petitioners, who failed to get included in the list of candidates called for document verification/are dissatisfied with the final answer key, have filed the present writ petitions. 5. The final answer key was also issued alongwith the cut-off marks category-wise for candidates, who were called for document verification. The petitioners, who failed to get included in the list of candidates called for document verification/are dissatisfied with the final answer key, have filed the present writ petitions. 5. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the material produced alongwith the writ petitions that the determination made by the respondents while deciding the objections of the petitioners with reference to various questions is faulty and therefore, the final answer key deserves to be rejected and the respondents be directed to redetermine the final answer key and issue a fresh list of candidates called for document verification. 6. Submissions have also been made that once 10 questions were deleted by the respondents, the marks of those questions should have been equally distributed for all the remaining questions, however, the respondent-Board has distributed the marks of deleted questions subject-wise, which is not justified and therefore, in the revised answer key, the said illegality be directed to be cured. 7. Though no reply to the writ petitions have been filed, response qua the objections raised with regard to the final answer key have been made and as per the directions of the Court, the opinion of the Experts after objections were raised to the preliminary answer key, have been produced for perusal of the Court, which aspect has been considered at appropriate stage. 8. Further submissions have been made that the scope of interference in the final answer key, which have been prepared based on the opinion of the Experts, is very limited and therefore, no interference is called for in the writ petitions. It was prayed that writ petitions be dismissed. 9. Reliance has been placed on judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in U.P. Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh : (2018) 7 SCC 254 . 10. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 11. Taking of the issue of distribution of marks pertaining to deleted questions subject-wise, it would be noticed that the question paper was bifurcated in a manner that subject-wise questions were asked as under :- Question No. Subject 1 to 20 Horticulture 21 to 35 Hindi 36 to 55 Agronomy 56 to 75 Animal 76 to 100 G.K. 12. 11. Taking of the issue of distribution of marks pertaining to deleted questions subject-wise, it would be noticed that the question paper was bifurcated in a manner that subject-wise questions were asked as under :- Question No. Subject 1 to 20 Horticulture 21 to 35 Hindi 36 to 55 Agronomy 56 to 75 Animal 76 to 100 G.K. 12. Once the respondents had distributed the questions subject-wise, their action in distributing the marks of deleted questions subject-wise cannot be faulted, inasmuch as, advantage of deletion of questions by way of enhancement of maximum marks for each question must be given subject-wise, so that a candidate who has attempted particular questions in a particular subject would not suffer on account of the deleted questions. If the marks pertaining to deleted questions were to be distributed equally in all the remaining questions, the over all maximum marks of other subjects would increase changing the weightage provided by the respondents, which would not be justified and therefore, the plea raised by the petitioners in this regard cannot be accepted. 13. Coming to the various objections raised by the petitioners pertaining to the final answer key, the parameters with regard to the Court's interference in such matters are laid down in Rahul Singh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Supreme Court has laid down following parameters :- “8. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us. 9. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:- 16………..We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:- 16………..We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Government should devise a system for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. 10. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms:- 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. 11. We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional 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. 11. We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional 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 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. 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. 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. 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 the 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.” 14. The petitioners in all the petitions cumulatively put have challenged the final answer key qua Question Nos.5, 10, 15, 17, 18, 30, 36, 46, 55 & 80 on various grounds i.e. questioning the deletion, variation in the answers as indicated in the preliminary answer key and not accepting the objections raised by the petitioners qua the preliminary answer key. 15. Examining the various objections as raised by the petitioners with regard to various questions on the parameters laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the determination is as under :- Question No.5 -Head is economical part of - (A) Cabbage (B) Cauliflower (C) Knalkhal (D) Sprouting broccoli gSM fdl Qly dk vkfFkZd Hkkx gS \ ¼,½ QwyxksHkh ¼ch½ iRrkxksHkh ¼lh½ xkWBxksHkh ¼Mh½ vadqfjr czkdyh Preliminary Answer Key - (Not indicated by the petitioner) Final Answer Key - (Deleted) 16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that answer 'A' was correct and the question has been wrongly deleted. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that answer 'A' was correct and the question has been wrongly deleted. It is submitted that the respondents only on account of some ambiguity in the Hindi version has deleted the question, which is justified in view of instruction 10 indicated in the question booklet, whereby it was provided that if there is any sort of ambiguity/mistake either in printing or factual nature in Hindi and English version of the question, English version will be treated as standard and therefore, the respondents were not justified in deleting the question. 17. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that the experts had opined that the question in both the versions was incorrect and as such, the same has been deleted. 18. Having considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties. 19. Apparently, there is no difference between English and Hindi version of the question and therefore, once, the experts have come to the conclusion that the questions in both the versions are incorrect, no interference is called for. Question No.10 - Propagation of date palm is by - (A) Suckers (B) Seeds (C) Offshoots (D) None Preliminary Answer Key - (C) Final Answer Key - (C) 20. The challenge pertaining to the said question has been laid by the petitioner - Shiv Prakash in SBCWP No.13962/2019. 21. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that the petitioner had not filed any objection qua the preliminary answer key and therefore, he is not justified in raising objection qua the answer in the final answer key, wherein the answer indicated in the preliminary answer key has not been revised. The submissions of learned counsel for the respondent-Board appears to be justified. 22. In Sonam Choudhary v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : 2019(3) RLW 2508 (Raj.), this Court, inter-alia, in relation to raising of objection and estoppel in this regard, inter-alia, laid down as under :- "So far as the issue raised by learned counsel for the respondent-RPSC regarding the right of the candidates to question the validity of the final answer key, once they have not raised any objection to the model answer key despite grant of opportunity by the respondent-RPSC is concerned, the said aspect has to be examined in the context and no strait-jacket principle can be laid down. In case a particular option is indicated in the model answer key, which despite objections raised by other candidates, the same option is reiterated in the final answer key and thereafter if the candidates, who had not raised any objection to the model answer key seek to raise objections, they may be estopped from raising the issue having failed to avail the opportunity provided. However, in case, the answer suggested in the model answer is changed in the final answer key and the candidates, who did not raised any objection to the model answer key have any objection to the revised answer/option in the final answer key, they can’t be estopped from changing the final answer key on the ground that they did not raise objection qua the model answer key, inasmuch as, they had no occasion earlier to raise such objection." 23. As the petitioner has not raised any objection qua preliminary answer key and even in the writ petition it is wrongly indicated that the question has been deleted in the final answer key, the plea raised in this regard is baseless and the petitioner being estopped the issue need not be examined. Question No.15 -Sinduri is variety of - (A) Guava (B) Pomegranate (C) Mango (D) Papaya Preliminary Answer Key - (B) Final Answer Key - (Deleted) 24. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the answer 'B' alone was correct and the respondents are not justified in deleting the question. 25. Reference has been made to book Krishi Vigyan for Class XII, wherein in relation to Pomegranate the improved variety has been indicated as Sinduri. 26. Learned counsel for the respondent-Board submitted that it is not disputed that the improved variety of Pomegranate is Sinduri, however, the variety of Red Coloured mango is also called Sinduri. Reference in this regard has been made to ICAR Publication on Mango by R.N. Singh by the experts. 27. In the Expert opinion produced by the respondents, various objections were raised in relation to Sinduri being a variety of Mango also and reference has been made to several books based on which the experts came to the conclusion that Sinduri is variety of Mango and Pomegranate both, so as multiple options are correct and therefore, question may be deleted. 28. In view of the above status, the deletion of Question No.15 is justified. 28. In view of the above status, the deletion of Question No.15 is justified. Question No.17 - In rose prunning time in rose growing area is - (A) October - November (B) December - January (C) July - August (D) November - December Preliminary Answer Key - (A) Final Answer Key - (A) 29. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that multiple answers are correct and the insistence of the respondents in indicating option 'A' as correct, is not justified. 30. Reference in this regard has been made to same book Krishi Vigyan for Class XI, wherein it is indicated that pruning is an important procedure for growing roses and for getting a good yield once between October to January, the procedure is undertaken and with regard to different varieties indication has been made for the time of pruning. 31. The Expert in his opinion indicated that the multiple options were not correct as in the roses growing areas, the pruning takes place in October-November only for getting big roses in winter. 32. Reference has been made to literature indicating that the usual time for pruning is October-November. 33. A perusal of the options indicated would reveal that the options are too close to each other and rather overlapping, inasmuch as, option 'A' indicates October-November, option 'D' indicates November-December and option 'B' indicates December- January and if answer 'A' is taken as correct, which is October- November, then why answer 'D' which indicates November- December would be incorrect and therefore, besides the fact that the literature produced by various petitioners predominantly provides that pruning time depends on climatic condition of the region and the question does not indicate any specific region, the fact that the options indicated are overlapping and contrary to the predominate literature in this regard, the determination made by the Experts indicating option 'A' as correct is manifestly incorrect as multiple answers are correct and on that count question No.17 deserved to be deleted. Question No.18 -Which fruit is suitable for Jam making ? (A) Banana (B) Pineapple (C) Guava (D) Sweet orange Preliminary Answer Key - (B) Final Answer Key - (Deleted) 34. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the indication made in the preliminary answer key was correct and therefore, the respondents were not justified in deleting the question. 35. (A) Banana (B) Pineapple (C) Guava (D) Sweet orange Preliminary Answer Key - (B) Final Answer Key - (Deleted) 34. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that the indication made in the preliminary answer key was correct and therefore, the respondents were not justified in deleting the question. 35. The Expert opinion produced by the respondents indicate that the multiple options are correct, inasmuch as, all the four options 'A', 'B', 'C' & 'D' were correct as Jam can be made from all the four fruits. 36. Reference in this regard has been made to Fruit and Vegetable/Preservation Principles & Practices by R.P. Srivastava & Sanjeev Kumar. 37. Having examined the issue as submitted, even if, the plea raised that option 'B' is correct is accepted, as all the other three options are also correct, the question has been rightly deleted. Question No.30 - fuEufyf[kr esa ls dkSu&lk 'kCn 'kq) gS ¼,½ mPNokl ¼ch½ uhgkfjdk ¼lh½ N=Nk;k ¼Mh½ egkRekx.k Preliminary Answer Key - (B) Final Answer Key - (B) 38. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner in SBCWP No.12386/2019 that more than one option were correct and therefore, the question deserves to be deleted. 39. Reference has been made to ‘Hindi Vyakaran Evam Rachna Prabodh’ for Classes IX to XII that besides option 'B', option 'A' mPNokl is also correct. 40. In the Expert opinion produced by the respondents, it is indicated with reference to the same material that the correct spelling of mPNokl would be with ^gyUr* i.e. mPN~okl- It is surprising that the petitioner though has produced an extract as Annexure-8, the relevant part apparently is missing, which has been attached with the expert opinion, which is contrary to the submissions made by the petitioner. 41. The respondents have also produced further material to support the contention i.e. 'Vyavharik Samanya Hindi' by Dr.Raghav Prakash and Dr. Savita Paiwal, wherein also correct spelling would be mPN~okl- 42. In view thereof, the submissions made in this regard has no substance. Question No.36 -Saline soils can be improved by - (A) Leaching (B) Pyrite Application (C) Gypsum Application (D) Lime Application Preliminary Answer Key - (A) Final Answer Key - (A) 43. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as all the options given are correct and therefore, the question needs to be deleted. 44. Question No.36 -Saline soils can be improved by - (A) Leaching (B) Pyrite Application (C) Gypsum Application (D) Lime Application Preliminary Answer Key - (A) Final Answer Key - (A) 43. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners that as all the options given are correct and therefore, the question needs to be deleted. 44. Reliance has been placed book on 'Krishi Vigyan' for class XI from the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, wherein under the heading 'Reclamation of Saline Soils', under (A) various methods have been indicated, which includes Scraping, Flushing of Soluble Salts, Leaching and under (B) Chemical Methods for Alkaline Soil various chemicals have been indicated including Gypsum, Lime, Pyrites etc. 45. In the Expert opinion produced by the respondents, the Expert has opined that the objection was not correct as Gypsum and Pyrites are used in Alkaline Soil. The observations/findings given by the Expert appear to be correct, inasmuch as, though in the book cited by the petitioners, under the heading 'Reclamation of Saline Soils' in Mechanical Methods, Leaching has been indicated; in Chemical Methods, Gypsum, Lime and Pyrites have been indicated with the following indication :- ^^¼c½ jklk;fud mik; (Chemical Methods)- {kkjh; e`nkvksa esa fofue;’khy lksfM;e dks vU; /kukRed vk;Ul }kjk e`nk lrg ls gVkus ds fy, dke esa fy;s tkus okys jlk;u e`nk lq/kkjd dgykrs gSA** 46. From the above, it is apparent that the Chemical Methods have been indicated for ^{kkjh; e`nk* i.e. Alkaline Soil, whereas the question pertaining to Saline Soils, for which 'leaching' only has been correct answer. 47. In view thereof, the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioners cannot be accepted. Question No.46 - The recommended dose of Nitrogen (kg ha-1) for Rajma is - (A) 40-50 kg ha-1 (B) 20 kg ha-1 (C) 60-70 kg ha-1 (D) 110-120 kg ha-1 The objection raised in SBCWP No.11998/2019 is that the question is out of syllabus. 48. It is submitted that the syllabus indicates only the following pulses, whereas question has been asked about 'Rajma', which is not included :- ^nkys & ewax] pWoyk] elwj] mMn] eksB] puk ,oa eVjA* 49. The Expert has opined that the question pertains to fertilizer requirement and the topic is well covered under the section of fertilizers and their uses in cultivation of different crops. 50. The Expert has opined that the question pertains to fertilizer requirement and the topic is well covered under the section of fertilizers and their uses in cultivation of different crops. 50. A perusal of the syllabus as produced by the petitioner clearly indicates as under :- ^^thoka’k [kknksa dk egRo] izdkj ,oa cukus dh fof/k;ka rFkk u=tu] QkLQksjl] iksVsf’k;e moZjd] ,dy] fefJr ,oa ;ksfxd moZjd ,oa muds iz;ksx dh fof/k;kaA** 51. In view of the fact that the syllabus in relation to the use of fertilizers is quite extensive, the plea regarding the question in relation to the use of nitrogen for 'Rajma' cannot be said to be out of syllabus. Question No.55 -Sowing of one or two rows of blackgram in between two rows of maize is an example of - (A) Companion crops (B) Guard crops (C) Strip crops (D) Multitier crops eDdk dh nks iafDr;ksa ds e/; mM+n dh ,d ;k nks iafDr;kW yxkuk] mnkgj.k gS& ¼,½ lgpj Qlyksa dk ¼ch½ j{kd Qlyksa dk ¼lh½ iV~Vhnkj Qlyksa dk ¼Mh½ cgqLrjh; Qlyksa dk Preliminary Answer Key - (A) Final Answer Key - (Deleted) 52. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to book titled 'Krishi Vigyan' for Class XII issued by the Board of Secondary Education, Rajasthan, Ajmer that the correct answer is 'A', wherein it is indicated as under :- ^^¼2½ lgpj Qlysa (Companion Crops)& bl vUr%’kL; esa ,slh Qlyksa dk pquko djrs gSA ftudh mit ,dy Qly ds leku gh izkIr gksrh gSA mnkgj.k & eDdk dh nks iafDr;ksa ds chp mM+n dh nks iafDr;kW ,oa xUuk+vkywA** (emphasis supplied) 53. Though the objections raised by various candidates pertained to multiple options being correct, the Expert came to the conclusion based on the text book written by S.C. Poda that the same was an example of 'parallel cropping, which is not mentioned in the option', based on which the question has been deleted. 54. Though the objections raised by various candidates pertained to multiple options being correct, the Expert came to the conclusion based on the text book written by S.C. Poda that the same was an example of 'parallel cropping, which is not mentioned in the option', based on which the question has been deleted. 54. The literature relied on indicates as under :- "(i) Parallel Cropping : Cultivation of such crops which have different natural habit and zero competition e.g. Black gram/Green gram+ Maize" 55.A perusal of the literature relied on by the petitioners reveals that the same is very specific pertaining to identical example whereas in the Expert opinion, though the parallel cropping has been indicated for the similar example, the Expert has not opined that the option 'companion crops' was incorrect and once parallel cropping has not been indicated as an option and 'companion crops' alone has been indicated as an option and the literature in this regard indicates the same as correct answer, the action of the Board in deleting the question cannot be sustained. 56. The action of the authorities of the Board in accepting the Expert opinion, without further application of mind, writ large in the present case, which cannot be approved. Question No.80 -In which of the following city of Rajasthan, 'Rammats' are performed during Holi ? (A) Karauli (B) Jodhpur (C) Jaisalmer (D) Bikaner Preliminary Answer Key - (D) Final Answer Key - (Deleted) 57. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioners with reference to the book titled 'Rajasthan Ki Sanskriti Parampara' that the 'Rammats' are performed in Bikaner only and therefore, the deletion of the question is not justified. 58. In the Expert opinion produced by the respondents it is indicated with reference to the book titled 'Rajasthan Adhyayan' Part-3 for Class XI that 'Rammat' is performed in both Bikaner and Jaisalmer. The material produced by the petitioners does not confine the 'Rammat' to Bikaner only and refer to the characteristics of Bikaner's Rammat, however, the literature produced alongwith the expert opinion clearly indicates that 'Rammat' is performed at Bikaner and Jaisalmer both. In view thereof, deletion of the question can not be faulted. 59. The material produced by the petitioners does not confine the 'Rammat' to Bikaner only and refer to the characteristics of Bikaner's Rammat, however, the literature produced alongwith the expert opinion clearly indicates that 'Rammat' is performed at Bikaner and Jaisalmer both. In view thereof, deletion of the question can not be faulted. 59. In view of the determination made herein-before, it is apparent that the respondents were not justified in not deleting the Question No.17 and in deleting the Question No.55, which action of the respondents is palpably incorrect, rest of the objections raised by the petitioners pertaining to the final answer key have no substance. 60. As the respondents have not yet undertaken the exercise of document verification, the respondents would be required to revise the final answer key by deleting Question No.17 and modifying the answer to Question No.55 with 'A' being the correct option instead of deletion, it would redetermine the merit list and publish a fresh list of candidates to be called for document verification. 61. Consequently, the writ petitions filed by the petitioners are partly allowed. The final answer key for recruitment to the post of Agriculture Supervisor pursuant to the advertisement dated 25.05.2018 is directed to be modified qua Question Nos. 17 & 55 by deleting Question No.17 and taking option 'A' as correct answer for Question No.55, the merit list/result dated 22.07.2019 be revised by the respondent-Board and a fresh list of candidates to be called for document verification based on the revised list be issued, whereafter recruitment process would proceed further. Needful be done most expeditiously. No order as to costs.