JUDGMENT Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. - The matter has come up on an application filed by the respondents under Article 226(3) of the Constitution of India for vacation of the interim order. However, learned counsel for the respective parties jointly are in agreement that these writ petitions itself may be disposed of finally at this stage. 2. In the present bunch of writ petitions, the answers as finally approved of questions no.13, 24, 25, 40, 41 and 49 are under challenge. 3. For question no.13, initially in the answer key, the correct answer reflected was "B" which was challenged by the petitioners. However, the examining body, after considering the objections and opinion of the expert, has retained the answer as option "B". 4. For question no.24, originally the answer key reflected the same to be deleted against which objections were filed whereafter on the basis of opinion of the expert, the option "A" has been treated as the correct answer in the final answer key. 5. The question no.25 was originally deleted in the first answer key. However, after receiving objections and report of the expert committee, option "C" has been treated as the correct answer. 6. For question No.40, originally the answer option "A" was treated as correct answer. After objection having been received, the same has now been deleted in the final answer key on the basis of the expert opinion. 7. For question no.41, the option "D" was originally held to be the correct answer but after receiving objections and considering the opinion of the experts, the same has been deleted. 8. For question no.49, originally the option "A" was considered as the correct answer but after receiving objections and opinion of the expert committee, the option "A" has been retained as the correct answer. 9. Learned counsel for the respective writ petitioners jointly submitted that the relevant answer options, which were challenged by them in their respective writ petitions, are erroneous and in support of their contention, they have relied upon certain material which they have extracted from various books. 10. It may be noted that in various writ petitions, one or two of the above questions' answers are under challenge. 11. 10. It may be noted that in various writ petitions, one or two of the above questions' answers are under challenge. 11. Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that in view of the authentic pronouncements in different books extracts, which (Downloaded on 16/06/2020 at 02:34:56 PM) (13 of 19) [CW-14068/2019] have been referred to, the answer as reflected in the final answer key is erroneous and has materially affected their result. 12. For question no.13, the question asked was "which method of vegetables gardening is called as intensive gardening" and learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the option "B" (Kitchen Gardening) treated as correct is wrong and the correct answer was option "D" (None of these). It is submitted that the correct answer is Market Gardening. 12.1 For this purpose, learned counsel for the petitioners have taken this Court to the books about gardening and it is mentioned that Market Gardening is done by intensive farming and the process of Crop Rotation is followed and therefore, for the question where the method of Vegetable Gardening is Intensive Gardening, the correct option can be other than Market Gardening and therefore, the answer option was "D" (None of these). 12.2 In reply, the concerned Expert Committee has given reasons for retaining option "B" (Kitchen Gardening) on the ground that in Kitchen Gardening the vegetables are taken one after other. It is also mentioned that there is no specific objection in relation to the answer "B". 13. For question no.24, where the question asked was "In which word is used ?", the Expert Committee has given reasons for treating option "A" as the correct one as the word is formed by adding suffix of . Originally, the question was deleted. 13.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that they have no objection with regard to the said aspect. 14. For question No.25, which was originally deleted, the Expert Committee has given option "C" as the correct answer as the word is the negative form of by adding to word and is therefore, one of the form of . 14.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to point out any illegality in the said decision of the Expert Committee. 15. 14.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to point out any illegality in the said decision of the Expert Committee. 15. As regards questions no.40 and 41, the Expert Committee has treated for question No.40, which was in two options which can be said to be correct namely; "A" and "D" as the question 40 was as under:- "Which of the following phosphatic fertilizer is suitable for acidic soils ?:- (a). Rock phosphate (b) Ammonium phosphate (c) Diammonium phosphate (d). Dicalcium phosphate " 15.1 Since option "A" (Rock phosphate) and option "D" (Dicalcium phosphate) both are acidic in nature, they are suitable for acidic soils. Hence, the Expert Committee has deleted them. 15.1 Learned counsel for the petitioners could not deny this aspect for both "Rock phosphate" and "Dicalcium phosphate" and would be, therefore, suitable for "Acidic Soils". 16. 16.1.Question No.41 reads as under:- "Among the following is a example of biennial weed ? (a) Cynodon dactylon (b) Cyperus rotundus (c) Avena (patva) (d) Eichorium intybus " 16.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that option "D" should be treated as the correct answer and the same should not have been deleted. The word "Eichorium intybus" has only been wrongly typed and actually it is "Tichorium". 16.3 The Expert Committee deleted the question as all the options as mentioned in English version as well as Hindi version were not correct. Even option "D" was mentioned wrong. 17. So far as the question 49 is concerned, the correct option of the same has been treated as option "A" by the Expert Committee. 17.1 Question No.49 reads as under:- "The growth of auxiliary buds into shoot is know as- (a) Branching (b) Tillering (c) Jointing (d) Flowering" 17.2 Learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that this question is out of syllabus while the learned counsel for the respondents submitted that it is a basic knowledge of Botany which relates to plant growth and development and an Agriculture Supervisor ought to know the minimum basics about plant growth. The growth of auxiliary buds into shoot is always known as branching and it is a common knowledge. Therefore, the answer should not be doubted upon. 18. The growth of auxiliary buds into shoot is always known as branching and it is a common knowledge. Therefore, the answer should not be doubted upon. 18. This Court is of the firm view that the scope of interference in final answer key, which has been prepared on the basis of opinion of the experts, does not call for any interference as this Court cannot substitute its own personal knowledge or information to that of the experts. 19. The Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of UP, (2018) 2 SCC 357 held as under:- "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 re-evaluation 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. 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. 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. 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." 20. The Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr, (2018) 7 SCC 254 has held as under:- "12. 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." 20. The Supreme Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr, (2018) 7 SCC 254 has held as under:- "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. 13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct." 21. Learned counsel for the petitioners have not been able to demonstrate that the Expert Committee was in any manner wrongful or suffered from any defect. There is also no allegation of malafides against the expert report. Keeping in view the nature of competitive examinations and having considered the aforesaid questions, which were dealt with by the experts, this Court finds that the experts have applied their mind thoroughly to the objections and reached to the conclusions. There is also no allegation of malafides against the expert report. Keeping in view the nature of competitive examinations and having considered the aforesaid questions, which were dealt with by the experts, this Court finds that the experts have applied their mind thoroughly to the objections and reached to the conclusions. This Court will not substitute its own conclusions to that of the experts. 22. In view thereof, the result declared finally after the expert opinion, does not warrant any interference. The respondents have also placed material which was relied upon by the experts for reaching to their conclusions. This Court does not burden its judgment with the said aspects. Suffice it to state that this Court is satisfied that the experts' opinion is based on application of mind and relevant academic material available with them. 23. Consequently, these writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. The interim order passed by this Court also stands vacated. The respondents are now directed to proceed with the appointment process on the basis of the final result as declared on the basis of the report of the experts. All pending applications stand disposed of.