JUDGMENT Ravi Malimath, A.C.J. - The subject matter in all these four petitions are similar. The difference is with regard to the category of the petitioners and the questions they have challenged in these writ petitions. Hence they are disposed off by this common order relatable to each one of the writ petitioners. 2. In pursuance to a notification dated 31.5.2019, applications were invited for the post of Uttarakhand Judicial Service Civil Judges Junior Division 2019. Out of 15 seats, 6 seats were for un-reserved category, and out of this 30% i.e. 2 seats were reserved for Uttarakhand women, 1 seat was reserved for scheduled caste, 7 seats were reserved for other backward category, and 1 seat was reserved for the economically weaker section. 3. A subsequent notification was issued on 30.7.2019, announcing that the preliminary examination for the post mentioned was to be held on 01.09.2019. A third notification was issued on 27.8.2019, wherein the above-mentioned posts were increased from 15 to 28 with the relevant divisions. 4. There were 200 questions in the preliminary examination. Part-I of the paper was general knowledge consisting of 50 questions carrying one mark each. Part-II consisted of 150 questions carrying one mark each. However, for every wrong answer there would be a deduction of 1/4th mark namely 0.25 mark in terms of the advertisement. 5. The candidates wrote the exam. Key answers were thereafter released and objections were called for. After considering the objections, the final key answers were once again released. Thereafter, the results were announced on 04.10.2019. 6. The petitioners secured less than the cut-off marks in their respective categories. Hence they were not entitled to pursue the main examination. Therefore, the instant writ petitions were filed, seeking to quash the results of the preliminary examination, and by declaring the petitioners to have passed, by according them appropriate answers for which marks were not given etc. 7. The facts in each writ petition is considered as follows: 7.(a) The petitioner-Nitesh Goyal, in WPSB No.493 of 2019, applied for the post, as a general category candidate. The cut-off marks as announced for the preliminary examination was 145.75 marks. The petitioner secured 143.25 marks. His pleading pertains to question nos.7 and 164 of Set 'A' of the question paper. (b) By an interim order dated 18.10.2019, this Hon'ble Court, held as follows: Admit. 2. The cut-off marks as announced for the preliminary examination was 145.75 marks. The petitioner secured 143.25 marks. His pleading pertains to question nos.7 and 164 of Set 'A' of the question paper. (b) By an interim order dated 18.10.2019, this Hon'ble Court, held as follows: Admit. 2. The petitioner, a candidate belonging to the General category, secured 143.25 marks, whereas the last cut-off marks was 145.75. It is his case that, while Question No. 7 itself was wrong, he answered Question No. 164 correctly and, consequently, he should have been awarded marks for these two questions; and, since he was awarded 0.25 negative marks for each incorrect answer, he would, in effect, be entitled to 2.50 more marks, which would bring his total marks to 145.75, which is the cut-off marks for appearing in the main examination. 3. While Question No. 164, which the petitioner claims to have answered, (as we have held in Writ Petition (S/B) No. 481 of 2019), is prima facie the correct answer, and he should have been awarded one mark for that question, we are afraid that the petitioner's claim, for him to be awarded marks for answering Question No. 7, in which event alone would he reach the cut-off marks of 145.75, is misplaced. 4. Question No. 7 is "The decision of the International Court of Justice is signed by whom?", and the options given are (a) The Chairman; (b) The Registrar; (c) Both (a) and (b); and (d) None of these. The petitioner ticked option (b) i.e. the Registrar. 5. The submission urged on his behalf by Sri M.S. Tyagi, learned Senior Counsel, is based on the Charter of the International Courts of Justice. Article 58 thereof stipulates that the judgment shall be signed by the President and by the Registrar. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, since the Public Service Commission has erroneously referred to the Chairman, instead of President, Question No. 7 itself was wrong; and, since the Registrar is required to be one of the signatories to the judgment, the answer given by the petitioner is correct. 6. Learned Senior Counsel would submit that, since the Public Service Commission has erroneously referred to the Chairman, instead of President, Question No. 7 itself was wrong; and, since the Registrar is required to be one of the signatories to the judgment, the answer given by the petitioner is correct. 6. On the other hand Sri B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, would submit that, even if this Court were to proceed on the premise that Question No. 7 is wrong and the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission ought to have referred to the "President" and not to the "Chairman", its consequence would only be that all candidates, who appeared in the examination, would be entitled for one bonus mark in which event, while the petitioner's marks would undoubtedly increase to 145.50, after adding the bonus mark, the petitioner would, even then, not be eligible to appear in the main examination, as all candidates would be entitled for one bonus mark, in which even the cut-off marks for appearing for the main examination would also increase by one mark to 146.75 marks. 7. While we see no reason, as at present, to permit the petitioner to appear in the main examination, suffice it to make it clear that selection of candidates, for the posts of Civil Judge (Junior Division), shall be subject to further orders in this writ petition. 8. Sri B.D. Kandpal, learned Standing Counsel for the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, requests time to file counter affidavit. 9. Post on 18.11.2019. (c) By the said order, the Division Bench was of the view that so far as the answer to question No.164 is concerned, it is the same question which was considered in Writ Petition (S/B) No.481 of 2019. Therefore, prima facie, it is the correct answer and hence, the petitioner should be awarded one mark for that question. So far as the answer to question No.7 is concerned, the submission of the counsel for respondent no.1 was to the effect that even if one mark is given to the petitioner, he will not qualify in view of the fact that if the options to the answer are wrong, then everybody will get one mark and, therefore, the cut-off marks will increase by one mark. Considering the contentions, we are of the considered view that the question of awarding one bonus mark notionally to all the students would not be practical. No statistics is produced by the Public Service Commission, but we could presume that there would have been a number of candidates who have missed the cut off mark by one mark. If it is so, then a large number of students will be affected and the earlier results will be altered. The same will result in an uncontrollable cascading effect. Since none of them are before this Court, granting one notional mark to the cut off mark, in our considered view, may not be correct. The notional mark is necessarily to be granted only to those who have approached this Court. The petitioners cannot be denied the same only on the ground that the cut off mark will increase because of the notional grant of one mark to students who have not challenged the same. Therefore, the contention of respondent no.1 that the cut off mark increases by 1 mark to 146.75, cannot be accepted. Since the cut off marks as stated by the Public Service Commission is 145.75 and in view of the wrong marks given by the Public Service Commission, if 2.5 marks are added, the petitioner would secure 145.75 marks, which would entitle him to write the main examination. 8. 8.(a) In Writ Petition (S/B) No.509 of 2019, there are two writ petitioners. The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in view of the marks obtained and the counter affidavit filed by the respondent no.1, petitioner no.2 does not qualify for the main examination. Therefore, contentions are advanced only so far as the first petitioner is concerned. Hence the writ petition is dismissed so far as the second petitioner, Shri Shubham Bansal is concerned. (b) The first petitioner herein applied under the category of "Uttarakhand Female". The cut off for the Uttarakhand Female was declared as 128.25 marks. The first petitioner secured 127.50 marks. (c) The first petitioner was given Set 'C' of the question paper. She has questioned the answers to question Nos.23, 86, 87, 95 and 128. In Set 'A' of the exam paper, the same questions have been numbered as 49, 155, 156, 164 and 197. Question No.86 in Set 'C' is the same question as question No.155 in Set 'A', which reads as follows:- 86. She has questioned the answers to question Nos.23, 86, 87, 95 and 128. In Set 'A' of the exam paper, the same questions have been numbered as 49, 155, 156, 164 and 197. Question No.86 in Set 'C' is the same question as question No.155 in Set 'A', which reads as follows:- 86. The High Court may exercise its inherent power under Section 482 on which of the following grounds? (a) in rarest of rate case (b) in ex debito justice (c) to prevent abuse of process of any court (d) All of these Learned counsel for respondent no.1 fairly submits that the correct answer given by the first petitioner is option 'c'. The key answer released by respondent no.1 is 'd'. Therefore, one mark for the correct answer and 0.25 marks for the deduction of the wrong answer requires to be added. Question No.95 in Set 'C' is the same question as question No.164 in Set 'A', which reads as follows:- 95. Consider the following statements to summary trial under the Criminal Procedure Code and choose the correct answer with the help of the code given below: 1) Offence under Sections 454 and 456 of the Indian Penal Code may be tried by summary trial. 2) Sentence under summary trial shall not be passed less than three months. 3) Procedure of trial of summon case shall be followed in summary trial. Code: (a)Only (1) and (2) are correct. (b) Only (2) and (3) are correct. (c) Only (1) and (3) are correct. (d) All (1), (2) and (3) are correct. Learned counsel for respondent no.1 fairly submits that the answer given to question No.164 of Set 'A' of the exam paper by the petitioner has been stated to be correct by the Division Bench of this Court in its order in Writ Petition (S/B) No.481 of 2019 dated 17.10.2019. Therefore, one mark for the correct answer and 0.25 mark for the deduction of the wrong answer requires to be added. (d) Even otherwise respondent no.1 has stated that the answer to question nos.49 and 155 has been rightly given by the petitioner. Therefore, one mark each plus 0.25 each requires to be added, which makes it 2.50. If 2.50 is added to 127.50 obtained by the petitioner, she would score at least 130 marks, and therefore, eligible to attend the main examination. Therefore, one mark each plus 0.25 each requires to be added, which makes it 2.50. If 2.50 is added to 127.50 obtained by the petitioner, she would score at least 130 marks, and therefore, eligible to attend the main examination. Hence it would not be necessary to consider the other questions. 9. In WPSB No.513 of 2019 the petitioner applied under the category of "Uttarakhand Female". She has secured 127 marks. The cut off is 128.25 marks. The questions raised by the petitioner are question Nos.35, 40, 43 and 129 in Set 'B.' Question No.43 in Set 'B' is the same question as question No.7 in Set 'A'. Question No.129 in Set 'B' is the same question as question No.164 in Set 'A'. Question Nos.7 and 164 in Set 'A' have already been answered by giving reasons in WPSB No.493 of 2019. Therefore, on applying the same reasons, the petitioner would be entitled to 2.50 marks. If 2.50 marks is added to the marks obtained by the petitioner, she would get 129.50 marks in all. Therefore, she would be eligible to write the main exam. 10. 10.(a) So far as the petitioner in WPSB No.541 of 2019 is concerned, she applied under the category of "Uttarakhand Female" and has secured 127.25 marks. The cut off is 128.25 marks. The questions raised by her are question at sl. nos.31, 95, 106 and 144 in Set 'C' of the exam paper, corresponding question nos.7, 164, 175 and 51 in Set 'A'. Question no.164 in Set 'A' has already been answered in WPSB No.493 of 2019. Question no.106 in Set 'C' is the same question as question No.175 in Set 'A', which reads as follows: - "106. 'A' is a carrier, is entrusted by 'Z' with property to be carried by land or by water, 'A' dishonestly misappropriates of property. 'A' has committed the offence of : (a) Criminal misappropriation of property (b) Cheating (c) Criminal breach of trust (d) Criminal breach of trust by carrier, etc. (b) According to the answer key, the correct answer is option 'c'. What has been marked is option 'd'. On considering the question, it is needless to state that the answer given by the petitioner is correct. When we asked the learned counsel for respondent no.1 whether the option 'd' is correct, he fairly submits that option 'd' is the correct option. What has been marked is option 'd'. On considering the question, it is needless to state that the answer given by the petitioner is correct. When we asked the learned counsel for respondent no.1 whether the option 'd' is correct, he fairly submits that option 'd' is the correct option. Therefore, a mark has to be awarded for that also. (c) Question no.144 in Set 'C' is the same question as question No.51 in Set 'A'. The correct answer, according to the key answer, is 'd'. According to the petitioner, it is option 'c'. The same reads as follows: - "144. Exchange under Transfer of Property Act, is equal to: (a) partition (b) gift (c) sale (d) None of these (d) Learned counsel for the Commission submits that answer 'c' as given by the petitioner is correct. Therefore, one mark, therein, also has to be given. In all, the petitioner would be entitled to 1.25 x 2 = 2.50 marks. She has secured 127.25. If 2.50 marks are added, the petitioner would secure 129.75 marks, and she will be eligible to appear for the main examination. 11. As mentioned hereinabove, we have gone through the question papers furnished. We have considered the answers given by the petitioners and those declared as correct answers by respondent no.1. We are aware of our limitation in interfering in academic matters. We are also aware that in a number of cases, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has time and again cautioned, that the writ courts cannot opine beyond the expert opinion or the opinion as furnished by the academic bodies. However, the situation herein, is different. The questions pertain to law. Therefore, it is a very well conversant subject with all the learned counsels. Secondly, even though the counter-affidavits disclose otherwise for some questions, learned counsel appearing for respondent no.1 has very fairly stated as to what are the correct answers for the relevant questions. Therefore, it does not require any argument to disagree partly with the counter-affidavit and accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondent no.1. The options given to some questions, as narrated hereinabove, are incorrect. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent no.1. Therefore, it does not require any argument to disagree partly with the counter-affidavit and accept the submission of the learned counsel for respondent no.1. The options given to some questions, as narrated hereinabove, are incorrect. The same is not disputed by the learned counsel for respondent no.1. It is in these circumstances, we are of the view that the opinion of the Court, being based on the submission of respondent no.1 and other learned counsels, does not amount to overriding the opinion of the academic body. 12. Furthermore, the answers to the questions cannot be said to be the opinion of the expert body. Every question has only one right answer. The questions are objective. There is only one right answer which attracts a positive mark for the candidate. Therefore, there is no element of an 'opinion' that is involved. Answers are matters of fact and not opinion. Therefore, the learned counsels themselves are aware of the fact that mistakes have been committed by respondent no.1. 13. The material on record would indicate that even the expert body has given wrong answers. Objections were filed to the initial key answers. After considering the objections, the expert body has released the final key answers. Some of these answers are also wrong. The same is admitted by respondent no.1 in their counter-affidavit. So far as the answers to other questions are concerned, the learned counsel for respondent no.1 has himself stated that some of the answers are wrong. This is a subject of law and everyone is aware of what the correct answer is. It cannot be said that the correct answers have been arrived at after reasoning or after an element of deduction. On the face of it, it is evident that answers to some of the questions are wrong. It is needless to state that the key answer as given by respondent no.1 shall always be deemed to be correct until and unless proved wrong by the candidates. It is in this background that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Kanpur University through ViceChancellor and others vs. Samir Gupta and others, (1983) 4 SCC 309 , while affirming the order of the Allahabad High Court held at paragraph 16 as follows:- "16. It is in this background that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in its judgment in the case of Kanpur University through ViceChancellor and others vs. Samir Gupta and others, (1983) 4 SCC 309 , while affirming the order of the Allahabad High Court held at paragraph 16 as follows:- "16. xxxxxxx 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 rationalisation. 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 xxxxxxx" 14. It is, therefore, proved beyond any reasonable doubt that some of the key answers given wrong. Therefore, to refer this matter for reconsideration to the expert body would be a futile exercise. The learned counsel for respondent no.1 having himself submitted as to what are the right answers, the same does not call for any further reconsideration. 15. As evidenced hereinabove, the four petitioners would all qualify for the main examination. The main examination was held on 06.01.2020. The petitioners could not participate in the main exam. However, the Division Bench have held that the selection of the candidates shall be subject to the further orders of the Court. The exam have been held, the results are declared, and presently, the interview for the selected candidates is scheduled to be held between 17-19th September, 2020. 16. The facts in the case would indicate grave mistakes that have been committed by none other than the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission. It is a very responsible Commission, which has a solemn duty of selecting people to various posts from the State of Uttarakhand. It is not expected that the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission commits such mistakes. The key answers released by the Uttarakhand Public Service Commission are wrong in some cases. In some cases, even the question itself is wrong. In some cases, even the Act under which the Section has been asked, is not even mentioned. 17. The proof of the same can be seen from the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.1 in Writ Petition (S/B) No.493 of 2019 vide para 6 which reads as follows:- "6. In some cases, even the question itself is wrong. In some cases, even the Act under which the Section has been asked, is not even mentioned. 17. The proof of the same can be seen from the counter-affidavit filed by respondent no.1 in Writ Petition (S/B) No.493 of 2019 vide para 6 which reads as follows:- "6. That after receiving all the objection within the time frame the same were referred to the panel of the experts who re-examined the question and answers on 18.09.2019 and 19.09.2019 in the Commission premises and opined that the answer on 18.09.209 and 19.09.2019 in the Commission premises and opined that the answer of question Nos.7 and 14 were correct in the provisional answer key. Furthermore, regarding question No.170 of question papers Series-A, question No.135 of Series-B, question No.111 of SeriesC, and question No.89 of Series-D were opined to be incorrect question and for that bonus marks were awarded to all the candidates and likewise some answer were found incorrect and these answers of provisional answer key were changed and the objections/representation of the candidates were disposed of and thereafter, the approval of the Commission the final answer key was prepared and accordingly marks were awarded to the candidates and result of preliminary examination merit-wise and category was declared on 04.10.2019." 18. The very paragraph has been narrated in each of the other counter-affidavits also. Consequently, they were compelled to award bonus marks for each candidate for the errors committed by respondent no.1 etc. Furthermore, it has been pointed out to us that there is a huge variation between the Hindi and the English translated version. Specific questions and answers which were pointed out to us were put to the learned counsel for respondent no.1. He fairly submits that there is a difference in the translated version. 19. Some of the questions are incorrect. The options of some of the questions are incorrect. There is more than one correct answer. In some cases, there are no correct answers at all. An example to this effect can be seen from Writ Petition (S/B) No.493 of 2019. Question No.7 and its options read as follows: 7. The decision o the International Court of Justice is signed by whom? (a)The Chairman (b) The Registrar (c) Both (a) & (b) (d) None of these. 20. According to the key answers, the correct option is 'c'. Question No.7 and its options read as follows: 7. The decision o the International Court of Justice is signed by whom? (a)The Chairman (b) The Registrar (c) Both (a) & (b) (d) None of these. 20. According to the key answers, the correct option is 'c'. According to the candidate, the correct answer is 'd'. The relevant material in support of the case of the petitioner has also been produced as Annexure No.8 to the writ petition. It is the statute of the International Court of Justice. Article 58 therein reads as follows:- "Article 58" "The judgment shall be signed by the President and by the Registrar. It shall be read in open court, due notice having been given to the agents." 21. Therefore, the judgment has to be signed by the President and by the Registrar. That option is not given. The option given is the Chairman; the Registrar; both (a) & (b); and none of these. The reasons assigned in the counteraffidavit at paragraph 11 read as follow:- "11. That the contents of paragraph no.7 of the writ petition are misconceived and denied. It is stated that in view of Article 58 of Charter of International Court of Justice, the decision of the court is to be signed by the President and Registrar. Since the term Chairman or President is synonymous as such the subject expert opined that the option 'c' as mentioned in provisional answer key was correct......" 22. Therefore, this clearly indicates that the options given were incorrect and were shown as correct answers. Key answer is also incorrect. This is only one example that has been pointed out. There are various other examples that can be found in these question papers. These have, in fact, misled the candidates. They were unable to answer the question and in some cases where the questions are rightly answered were treated as wrong answers. It is undoubtedly the mistake committed by respondent no.1. 23. It is very unfortunate that there is a huge confusion created by respondent no.1. The candidates have been misled. The manner in which the exams have been conducted is less said the better. If this is the manner in which the exams are conducted, society will lose faith in respondent no.1. An exam is intended to test the ability of the candidate. The candidates have been misled. The manner in which the exams have been conducted is less said the better. If this is the manner in which the exams are conducted, society will lose faith in respondent no.1. An exam is intended to test the ability of the candidate. If wrong questions, wrong answers and ununderstandable questions are framed, it is the Commission that is to be blamed. The future of the candidates cannot be determined by errors committed by respondent no.1. The future of the candidates would be ruined by such acts of respondent no.1. It is not that every candidate has the wherewithal to fight for his rights. They would be silent sufferers to the injustice caused by respondent no.1. We do hope and expect that respondent no.1 would be more careful in the future exams to be conducted by it. 24. Having arrived at a conclusion that the respondent no.1 has committed glaring blunders in setting the question papers and answers etc, the question that arises for consideration is what next. The petitioners could not take up the main exam. The main exam is concluded. Results are announced. Interviews are scheduled. After having recorded a finding that respondent no.1 has committed these blunders, which have resulted in injustice, we are of the considered view that the injustice is required to be rectified. It cannot be allowed to remain. The interviews are to be held from 15th-17th September, 2020. There is still time for that. It is not adequate just by recording a finding against the respondent no.1, but to do justice. Relief is a consequence to the injustice being rectified. Therefore, merely pointing out an injustice and deprecating the action, is not sufficient. Justice has to be done. The orders of the courts of law should not end up in being merely academic, but should result in "real justice" to the party. Real justice would mean that injustice has been rectified, by doing justice. 25. Ultimate justice would have to be rendered by a court of law. Injustice cannot be done to the candidates. Justice has to be done. There has to be fairness. The petitioners are entitled to what they deserve and what is due to them. What they deserve and what is due to them, is as a result of the correct answers furnished by them. Injustice cannot be done to the candidates. Justice has to be done. There has to be fairness. The petitioners are entitled to what they deserve and what is due to them. What they deserve and what is due to them, is as a result of the correct answers furnished by them. The final key answers to some of the questions, as given by respondent no.1, are on the face of it wrong, which is fairly admitted by learned counsel for respondent no.1. 26. Equality of opportunity has been denied to the petitioners. The result is an unfair treatment to the petitioners. Even though the petitioners have given correct answers, they have not been awarded marks for the same. Therefore, equal opportunity has been denied to them. Equality of opportunity is as guaranteed to the citizens as expressed in the preamble to the Constitution of India. Therefore, such blunders cannot come in the way of denying equal opportunities to the petitioners. 27. It is for this reason, we are of the view that the courts of law should ensure that whenever injustice is identified, the same should be undone and justice should be delivered. In the facts of these cases, the same can be done only by conducting a main exam for the petitioners herein. It is only then that real justice will be done and not otherwise. 28. We are also of the view that since there are only four candidates, it would not be difficult for respondent no.1 to conduct the exam and declare their result before 17.9.2020. The results, as declared, will determine whether the petitioners have qualified for the interview or not. In case they qualify for the interview, then, they should be permitted to attend the interview by sending the names of those qualified persons to the Interview Board. 29. For all the aforesaid reasons, the writ petitions are partly allowed. The respondent-Uttarakhand Public Service Commission is directed to grant marks to the petitioners as follows: - Writ Petition (S/B) No. Name of Petitioner Marks to be awarded 493 of 2019 Nitesh Goyal 2.50 509 of 2019 Sagrika Semwal 2.50 513 of 2019 Afsha 2.50 541 of 2019 Monika Kothiyal 2.50 30. The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission shall add these marks to the marks already obtained by the petitioners and declare the result. The Uttarakhand Public Service Commission shall add these marks to the marks already obtained by the petitioners and declare the result. Consequently, they shall also indicate the eligibility of the writ petitioners to take the main examination. They shall inform the successful candidates of the date of holding the main examination and collect the relevant fees and other relevant documents if any from them. On the satisfactory receipt of all the relevant material, the petitioners shall be permitted to write the main exam. The respondent no.1 to ensure that the entire process, up to the correction of answer scripts and the declaration of the results, is done well before 17.9.2020. If any of the petitioners are qualified to attend the interview, they shall be so informed of the same. The Interview Board and the concerned authority shall also be intimated of the result of the exam, with the request to conduct the interview of the successful candidates before the last date, namely, 19.09.2020. All these petitioners shall immediately furnish their phone numbers, e-mail etc. to respondent no.1 to assist in communication. 31. The writ petitions are disposed off accordingly. 32. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed off.