Judgment Sanjay Dhar, J.—The petitioners have challenged order bearing No.F(Misc-Legc)KU/18 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) issued by respondent No.3, whereby claim of the petitioners with regard to their objections to the final answer key has been rejected. They have also impugned the result notification bearing No.01 dated 16.07.2018 pertaining to J&K SET, 2017-18, issued by respondents. A further direction upon respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioners and reframe the result of petitioners has also been sought. 2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioners is that respondent No.3 vide notification dated 30th of November, 2017, invited applications from eligible candidates for State Eligibility Test-2017-18 exams. In response to the said notification, the petitioners being eligible applied for the same and appeared in the test which was conducted by respondent No.3 on 11.03.2018. It is stated that vide notice dated 19.03.2018, the respondent No.3 notified the official key of various sets of question papers pertaining to the aforesaid examination and representations/queries regarding the said key were invited from the candidates. The petitioners claim that answers to some of the questions given in the key were wrong and, accordingly, they responded to the aforesaid notification. After taking note of these representations, the respondent No.3 issued revised second key vide notice dated 25th of May, 2018. Objections against the modified key were again invited from the candidates. The petitioners are stated to have responded to the second key as well pointing out the errors therein, where after respondent No.3 issued final answer key i.e. 3rd key as well as the result notification on 16th of July, 2018. It is averred by the petitioners that there were glaring mistakes even in the 3rd key which were brought to the notice of respondents by making representations but the same were not considered by the respondents. 3. It is the case of the petitioners that a perusal of the 3rd revised key would reveal that there are various discrepancies in so far as the answers given to some of the questions in different subjects are concerned. The petitioners have given illustrations of those discrepancies in their writ petition and annexed documents to support their contentions. According to the petitioners, if these mistakes/discrepancies in the third modified key are corrected/set right, they are sure to succeed in the examination and make the cutoff merit. 4. The petitioners have given illustrations of those discrepancies in their writ petition and annexed documents to support their contentions. According to the petitioners, if these mistakes/discrepancies in the third modified key are corrected/set right, they are sure to succeed in the examination and make the cutoff merit. 4. It has been submitted by the petitioners that despite making a number of representations with the respondents against the errors appearing in the final answer key, no action was taken by them compelling the petitioners to file a writ petition bearing OWP No.1530/2018 before this Court. The said petition was disposed of by the Court vide its order dated 20.08.2018, whereby respondent No.3 was directed to look into the grievances of the petitioners and pass a speaking order within a period of two weeks. 5. It is alleged that the respondents, instead of considering the grievances of the petitioners pursuant to the direction of this Court, passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners in a casual manner and thereby exhibiting non-application of mind. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents on the ground that the answers given in the final answer key are demonstrably wrongly but this fact has not been taken note of by the respondents while passing the impugned order. According to the petitioners, instant case is a fit one where this Court should intervene and pass appropriate directions. The petitioners have relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 690 , and Manish Ujwal & Ors. Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC 744 . 6. The respondents have resisted the writ petition by filing reply thereto. Respondent No.1, University Grants Commission, has filed a separate reply in which it is submitted that no relief is being sought by the petitioners against the said respondent and, as such, the writ petition as against said respondent is not maintainable. It has been further averred that the respondent No.1 only lays down the guidelines for holding of State Eligibility Tests, accords accreditation of tests conducted by the agencies other than UGC/CSIR, monitors the tests conducted by other agencies and suggests follow up measures and extends guidance and help to State level agencies in the organization of tests. It has been further averred that the respondent No.1 only lays down the guidelines for holding of State Eligibility Tests, accords accreditation of tests conducted by the agencies other than UGC/CSIR, monitors the tests conducted by other agencies and suggests follow up measures and extends guidance and help to State level agencies in the organization of tests. It has been further averred that the University of Kashmir has been identified as a nodal agency for conducting State Eligibility Test on behalf of the Government of Jammu and Kashmir and it has been provided accreditation by the University Grants Commission to conduct the State Eligibility Test. In short, the stand of respondent No.1 is that it is not directly involved in the process of inviting applications, conduct of examination, screening of OMR sheets (answer sheets) and preparation of result of the State Eligibility Test exam but its role is only to lay down guidelines and monitor the tests. 7. Respondents 2 to 4 have, in their reply, while admitting the factual aspects with regard to inviting of applications for State Eligibility Test, participation of the petitioners in the said test, issuance of answer keys including the final answer key and the impugned merit list, submitted that the representations against the answer keys, including those of petitioners, were taken note of and considered by the respondents, where after final answer key and merit list was issued on 16.07.2018. According to said respondents, the complaints received at a belated stage cannot be re-assessed as second revised key is the basis of declaration of result which is not liable for any further changes. It has been emphasized by the respondents that the final answer key was received from the team of concerned subject experts and was subsequently notified on the official website of the University. It has been claimed that ample opportunities were given to the students including the petitioners to submit their grievances prior to declaration of JK SET results 2017-18. 8. During the pendency of writ petition, vide order dated 26.12.2019, the respondents 2 to 4 were directed to produce the record and to file an affidavit highlighting the issue that had been raised by the petitioners in their objections to the answer key and the manner in which those objections were dealt with by the expert committee. 9. 8. During the pendency of writ petition, vide order dated 26.12.2019, the respondents 2 to 4 were directed to produce the record and to file an affidavit highlighting the issue that had been raised by the petitioners in their objections to the answer key and the manner in which those objections were dealt with by the expert committee. 9. In response to the aforesaid order, the respondents have produced the record and have filed affidavit dated 21.10.2020. In the said affidavit, it has been submitted by the respondents that the representations/grievances against the answer keys were considered by the Expert Committee on two occasions pursuant to notices dated 19.03.2018 and 25.05.2018, whereby objections were invited against the answer keys. The respondents have reiterated their stand that after issuance of final answer key and final result, there is no scope for entertaining any objections/complaints in view of guidelines of University Grants Commission. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the pleadings and record of the case. 11. Most of the factual aspects in this case are more or less admitted by the parties. The respondent No.3 invited applications from the eligible candidates for appearing in State Eligibility Test and the petitioners responded to the same and appeared in the said test. Vide notice dated 19.03.2018, queries regarding answer key that was uploaded on the website of the University were invited from the candidates, where after modified answer key was uploaded on the official website of the University. Vide notice dated 25.05.2018, again objections were invited regarding modified answer key. It was, however, made clear in the said notice that the result shall be prepared as per the fresh key and no objections, whatsoever, shall be received afterwards under any circumstances. The 3rd and final key along with final merit list of candidates was issued on 16.07.2018. 12. The record produced by respondents 2 to 4 would show that when objections were received with regard to first answer key as well as when objections were received with regard to modified answer key, the same were referred to Expert Committee and on their recommendations, third and final key was prepared and notified. According to the petitioners, even the third and final answer contains mistakes and discrepancies and their representations against this final answer key were never considered even after directions passed by this Court in OWP No.1530/2018 dated 20.08.2018. According to the petitioners, even the third and final answer contains mistakes and discrepancies and their representations against this final answer key were never considered even after directions passed by this Court in OWP No.1530/2018 dated 20.08.2018. The petitioners allege that their grievances have not been considered by the respondents and they have simply rejected their claim without referring the matter to Expert Committee. 13. The record produced by the respondents as well as the affidavit filed by them on 21.10.2020 does suggest that respondents 2 to 4 have not referred the representations/objections raised by the petitioners to the final answer key to any Expert Committee. The respondents have taken a stand that as per the guidelines of the University Grants Commission, once the final merit list and final answer key is issued, the complaints/objections against the same cannot be entertained. It is on the basis of these guidelines the respondent No.3 has issued the impugned order rejecting claim of the petitioners. The question arises whether respondents 2 to 4 were justified in doing so in the facts and circumstances of the case. 14. In the instant case, the respondent No.3 had invited objections to the answer key, not once but on two occasions, and the answer key has been modified twice, where after third and final answer key was issued, on the basis of which the merit list has been published. The respondents had, while inviting queries/objections to modified answer key, vide its notice dated 25.05.2018, made it clear that the result shall be prepared as per the fresh key and no objections, whatsoever, shall be received afterwards under any circumstances. Apart from this, instruction No.10 of the J&K State Eligibility Test, 2017, makes it clear that re-evaluation, reassessment or rechecking of answer sheets is not permissible and that evaluation once done is final and binding. 15. It is true that this Court, vide an exparte order dated 20.08.2018 passed in OWP No.1530/2018, had directed the respondent No.3 to look into the claim of the petitioners and pass an order but then the claim of the petitioner had to be looked into in the light of the guidelines applicable to the test. 15. It is true that this Court, vide an exparte order dated 20.08.2018 passed in OWP No.1530/2018, had directed the respondent No.3 to look into the claim of the petitioners and pass an order but then the claim of the petitioner had to be looked into in the light of the guidelines applicable to the test. Once that was done, the respondents 2 to 4 came to the conclusion that, in view of the guidelines, it would not be possible to re-open the issue after publishing the merit list and, accordingly, the impugned order came to be passed. 16. So far as the contention of the petitioners that even the third answer key published by the respondents contained glaring mistakes is concerned, the same cannot be commented upon by this Court as it pertains to the domain of experts. The Supreme Court in the case of U.P. P.S.C & another v. Rahul Singh & another, AIR 2018 SC 2861 , while holding that Courts cannot enter into academic field and determine as to which of the answer is better and more correct, observed 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. 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. 14. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts.” 17. In view of the aforesaid ratio laid down by the Supreme Court, it is clear that this Court cannot determine as to whether or not the mistakes/ discrepancies pointed out by the petitioners in their writ petition have any substance. As already noted, in the instant case, objections to the answer keys were invited on two occasions where after these objections were considered by domain experts and on their recommendations, the final answer key came to be issued. The respondents have, thus, done all that was expected of an examining body and this Court cannot determine the merits of the alleged mistakes pointed out by the petitioners in the final answer key. 18. Even if it is assumed that there are mistakes in the final answer key, still then, it would not be in the best interests of the system of holding of competitive examination for selection to a post, to keep the whole process wide open ad infinitum by inviting objections to the answer keys repeatedly. A finality has to be attached to the process of selection at some stage and while doing so, transparency and fairness of the process has to be maintained. 19. This Court in the case of J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination & Ors. A finality has to be attached to the process of selection at some stage and while doing so, transparency and fairness of the process has to be maintained. 19. This Court in the case of J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examination & Ors. v. Qazi Basra & Ors, 2014(I) S. L. J. 127, while emphasizing the need to attach finality to the process of holding competitive examination has observed as under: “14. A question of fundamental importance which arises for consideration of the Court is as to whether the BOPEE can be, in all circumstances, asked to refer the issue raised in respect of answer keys to the experts any time and every time a candidate projects grievance. The answer has to be no. a candidate, who takes a competitive examination/test, will never be satisfied with the results of such examination/test, in case he/she does not get berth of his/her choice in a particular professional course/discipline/ stream or in a college. If such tendency will be encouraged by directing and for re-evaluation of questions and answer keys at regular intervals, then selection process will never come to a logical end. In such circumstances, the selection process will always remain inconclusive. The selection process has to be concluded within reasonable time and in a fair manner. In view of the mandate contained in the MCI Regulations and the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, a time frame has been fixed for concluding the selection process. In respect of MBBS/BDS course, 30th September of every year is the last date of making of admissions. However, in view of law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case titled Asha – Appellant versus Pt. B. D. Sharma University of Health Sciences and others – Respondents, reports in (2012) 7 SCC 389 , in rare and exceptional cases, admission can be granted even after cutoff date or can be directed to be granted in the next academic session. 15. In the facts of this case, the BOPEE, after receiving representations, referred the matter to the Committee of two experts and the paper setter and after receipt of the report from them, marks were awarded to the candidates. The selection process would stand concluded after fresh exercise was conducted by the experts in respect of questions and answer keys, about which doubts were raised. The selection process would stand concluded after fresh exercise was conducted by the experts in respect of questions and answer keys, about which doubts were raised. Thus, there was no further scope for issuance of direction for referring the questions and answer keys, which have been projected by the respondent – writ petitioner in the writ petition or which she would project in her representation along with answer keys/revised answer keys, to the experts and/or paper setter. Such a direction has the effect of keeping the selection process wide open and providing chance to other candidates, not satisfied with their merit position, to seek similar reliefs.” 20. Having regard to the ratio laid down by this Court in the aforesaid case, it is clear that it will not be in the interests of student community to keep the selection process open for years together by inviting objections from the students to the answer keys repeatedly as unsuccessful candidates are bound to feel dissatisfied with the manner in which the answer key has been prepared. In order to maintain sanctity of the process of examination, a finality has to be given to it within a reasonable period of time. Therefore, this Court feels reluctant in passing any direction in favour of the petitioners at this belated stage after a period of more than 3½ years of date of holding of the examination. By now much water has flown down the river Jhelum and many candidates who have made the grade may have been appointed on the basis of the impugned merit list. Any direction at this stage would definitely have adverse consequences upon the career of such candidates. 21. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. Interim order, if any, shall cease to be in operation. 22. The record be returned to the learned counsel for respondents 2 to 4.