JUDGMENT : Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J. 1. The petitioners have preferred these writ petitions assailing the answer key published finally for the Rajasthan Eligibility Exam for Teachers (REET-2017). 2. It has been submitted that several questions in the question papers for REET 2017 had wrong answers published in the answer key or there were more than one options which were correct. It is submitted that on account of such discrepancy in the answer key, the petitioners have been deprived of receiving minimum 60% marks for REET-2017 and subsequent deprivation from participation/selection in appointment for the post of Teacher Grade-III. 3. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 21681/2018 : Sarita Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors., a challenge has been made to the answers provided in the answer key for question Nos. 15, 33, 79, 90, 95, 132, 140 & 147 of "Booklet Series F". 4. Learned counsel has painstakingly taken this court to each and every question and the options mentioned therein and also to certain reference books to contend that the answers provided in the answer key were wrong and he submits that either the answers which the petitioners have answered should be treated as correct or in the alternative, the questions should be deleted and bonus marks should be awarded to all. 5. Similarly, in the other writ petitions which have been heard jointly with this petition, certain other questions and answers provided in the answer key thereto, have been challenged. A reply has been filed by the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer (Raj.) which conducted the said examination and declared the answer key. It is submitted that they received the objections in pursuance of the advertisement published inviting objections to the answer key and all the objections were placed before the subject-wise expert committee formed by them having at least three experts of the concerned subject. It is stated that the expert committee formed, considered each and every objection received from the candidates and material submitted by them in support of their objections. At the same time, the expert committee also considered the material submitted by the paper setter/re-appraisal committee and after examining all the aspects, the expert committee has given its suggestions with regard to the questions and the objections. It has suggested to grant bonus marks in respect of certain questions and also suggested different answers in respect of certain questions. At the same time, the expert committee also considered the material submitted by the paper setter/re-appraisal committee and after examining all the aspects, the expert committee has given its suggestions with regard to the questions and the objections. It has suggested to grant bonus marks in respect of certain questions and also suggested different answers in respect of certain questions. The Board conducted the complete exercise on the basis of suggestions and expert committee report and the result was declared finally by publishing of the answer key on 31.07.2018. 6. For the reference of this Court and satisfaction for the respondents, the reply has been filed mentioning the opinion of the experts in relation to each and every question, which would be useful to quote hereinunder:- "That the petitioner has challenged the answers of Question Nos. 27, 38, 70, 103, 124, 139, & 147 of "E" series by way of filing the present writ petition contrary to the answer suggested by the Experts. The aforesaid question are being reproduce here as under:- Subject:- Child Development and Pedagogy Q. No. 27 (E-Series) 27. A 5 year old child has a general lack of responsiveness to others, serious deficiency in communication and unusual repetitive behaviour. Such characteristics are the sign of (A) Hearing impairment (B) Scholastic backwardness (C) Infantile Autism (D) Learning disability The petitioner is claiming that right answer is option "D" which is not correct. The Experts have categorically suggested right answer as option "C". The said opinion is based on "Introduction to Psychology" published by Tata Mc Graw Hill Education, "Educational Psychology" published by Tata Mc Graw Hill which are renowned book in this field and "Inclusive Education" of Yatindra Thakur published by Agrawal Publications. Subject:- Q. No. 38 (E-Series) The petitioner is claiming that right answer is option "A" which is not correct. The Experts have categorically suggested right answer is option "C". The said opinion is based on Subject:- English Question No. 70 (E-Series) 70. A person who writes a play is (A) playwright (B) play right (C) play writer (D) play write The petitioner is claiming that aforesaid question is out of course, therefore, entitled for Bonus which is not correct. The Experts have categorically suggested that answer of this question is option "A" as writer is supported with "Oxford English Dictionary", "Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary" and "Concise of Oxford English Dictionary". The Experts have categorically suggested that answer of this question is option "A" as writer is supported with "Oxford English Dictionary", "Cambridge Advanced Learner's Dictionary" and "Concise of Oxford English Dictionary". Subject:- English Question No. 89 (E-Series) 89. In the above passage the author wants to convey (A) many people in the world suffer from physical disabilities. (B) precautions are not taken against accidents. (C) people who are physically challenged are fit for employment. (D) physically challenged people have no scope. The petitioner is claiming that right answer is option "C" which is not correct. The Experts have categorically suggested that "the passage predominantly talks of the people suffering from various physical disabilities, and not about their employment and right answer as option "A". Subject:- Social Studies Question No. 103 (E-Series) 103. Which of the following is not a constitutional provision related to Social justice? (A) Reservation for SC and ST in Government jobs. (B) Reservation for SC and ST in Legislature. (C) Equal pay for equal work. (D) Prohibition of Child Labour. The petitioner is claiming that all options of the aforesaid question are right answers, therefore, entitled for Bonus which is not correct. The Experts have categorically suggested right answer is option "C" as "Equal pay for equal work" is related to Economic Justice not to Social Justice. The said opinion is based on "Social Science" of the Board of Secondary Education Rajasthan published by Rajasthan State Text Book Board and "Indian Constitution" of Dr. Jai Narayan Pandey published by Central Law Agency. Subject:- Social Studies Question No. 124 (E-Series) 124. The habitat of 'Yakut' tribe is (A) New Zealand (B) Congo Basin (C) Amazon Basin (D) North Siberia The petitioner is claiming that aforesaid question is out of course, therefore, entitled for Bonus which is not correct. The Experts have categorically suggested right answer is option "D". The said opinion is based on "Geography" of Class-XII of published by Rajasthan State Text Board and also suggested that it is in syllabus of "Human Resources". Subject:- Social Studies Question No. 139 (E-Series) 139. Social Studies teacher is telling the sequential process of election is classroom. She is using the technique of (A) Explanation (B) Narration (C) Discussion (D) Questioning The petitioner is claiming that right answer is option "C" which is not correct. The experts have categorically suggested right answer is option "B". Subject:- Social Studies Question No. 139 (E-Series) 139. Social Studies teacher is telling the sequential process of election is classroom. She is using the technique of (A) Explanation (B) Narration (C) Discussion (D) Questioning The petitioner is claiming that right answer is option "C" which is not correct. The experts have categorically suggested right answer is option "B". The said opinion is based on written by Dr. Kanti Mohan Shrivastav", "Teaching of Social Studies" written by Dr. R.L. Sharma & Dr. R.S. Verma and "Essentials of Edu. Tech." written by S.K. Mangal & Uma Mangal. Subject:- Social Studies Question No. 147 (E-Series) 147. What was the male literacy rate in India as per 2011 Census? (A) 82.14% (B) 65.46% (C) 72.36% (D) 78.30% The petitioner is claiming that all options of the aforesaid question are wrong, therefore, entitled for Bonus which is not correct. The Experts have categorically suggested right answer is option "A". The said opinion is based on "Geography" of Class-XII of published by Rajasthan State Text Book Board which also proved on web site of Census Department of Govt. of India." 7. The report of the expert committee subject-wise has also been brought up for the courts perusal to the court for perusal. In another case of Ankita Meena vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18897/2018, the synopsis relating to the other questions challenged has also been placed before the court as under:- SYNOPSES OF REPLY OF RESPONDENT BOARD Date of Examination : 11.02.2018 Objection invited on : 17.03.2018 Last date of submission of objections : 31.03.2018 Whether objections filed when invited: No Material placed in Writ petition : Yes Questions of answer :Q. No. 38 (Hindi-I), 89 under challenge (Eng.-II) and 135 (S.St.) Subject:-Hindi-I Question No. 38 (E-Series) The petitioner has given answer of this question as option "A" and also claiming now the same which is not correct. The Experts have categorically suggested right answer is option "C". The said opinion is based on Subject:-English-II Question No. 89 (E-Series) 89. In the above passage the author wants to convey (A) many people in the world suffer from physical disabilities. (B) precautions are not taken against accidents. (C) people who are physically challenged are fit for employment. (D) physically challenged people have no scope. The said opinion is based on Subject:-English-II Question No. 89 (E-Series) 89. In the above passage the author wants to convey (A) many people in the world suffer from physical disabilities. (B) precautions are not taken against accidents. (C) people who are physically challenged are fit for employment. (D) physically challenged people have no scope. The petitioner has given answer of this question as option "B" and also claiming now the same which is not correct. The Experts have categorically suggested that "the passage predominantly talks of the people suffering from various physical disabilities, and not about their employment and right answer as option "A". Subject:-Social Studies Question No. 135 (E-Series) 135. Social Studies is taught at (A) Secondary level (B) Senior Secondary level (C) Graduation level (D) All of the above The petitioner has given answer of this question as option "D" and also claiming now the same which is not correct. The Experts have categorically suggested right answer is option "A" giving opinion that in present education system (in 10+2 scheme), the subject Social Studies is taught as combination subject of History, Political Science, Geography and Economics in the name of Social Study whereas the above four subjects taught at higher level as different-different subjects not in the name of Social Study. The said opinion is based on "Social Studies Education" of writer B.D. Shaida and A.K. Shaida." 8. In S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 18377/2018 : Pawan Kumar & Ors. vs. State & Ors.), the opinion of the expert committee relating to question Nos. 73, 122 & 120 has been placed by way of an affidavit as under:- "4. That following are the opinions of different Professors & Head of departments of different university by showing that answer of the following questions given in the 'Answer Key' were wrong and the correct answers given by the petitioner-candidates were correct:- (1) Question No. 73 of 'G' Series Passage: In spite of rigorous precautions against accidents, many people are injured every year in factories and elsewhere. In addition, some people are born with physical disabilities. They are either blind or deaf or in some way deformed from birth. Upto quite recent time, little planned action was taken to help them in cases of hardship; but few seriously held the idea that these people might still have abilities in other directions. Question No. 73. In addition, some people are born with physical disabilities. They are either blind or deaf or in some way deformed from birth. Upto quite recent time, little planned action was taken to help them in cases of hardship; but few seriously held the idea that these people might still have abilities in other directions. Question No. 73. In the above passage, the author wants to convey (A) many people in the world suffer from physical disabilities. (B) precautions are not taken against accidents. (C) people who are physically challenged are fit for employment. (D) physically challenged people have no scope. In proof of the fact that Answer 'C' is correct opinion/certificates issued by 5 experts who are presently holding post of head of department of English are enclosed herewith as enclosure A to E. (2) Question No. 122 of 'G' Series, which is also same as question No. 128 in the 'F' series. Question No. 122(G) & 128(F) Social Studies is taught at (A) Secondary Level (B) Senior Secondary Level (C) Graduation Level (D) All of the above In proof of the fact that Answer 'D' is correct opinion/certificates issued by 3 experts who are presently holding post of head of department of Geography are enclosed herewith as enclosure F to G. (3) Question No. 120 of 'G' Series. Question No. 120 which of the following is not a constitutional provision, related to Social Justice? (A) Reservation for SC and ST in Government jobs. (B) Reservation for SC and ST in Legislature. (C) Equal pay for equal work. (D) Prohibition of Child Labour. According to the opinion given by expert Dr. B.D. Rawat who is a Retired Principal of University School of Law, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, all the four statements given in answer A, B, C & D are constitutional provisions opinion in enclosure." 9. Facing with the said reports, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the expert opinion placed on record, goes contrary to the Board of Secondary Education publications and some of the opinions shown do not refer to certain text books which have been published by the Board. Facing with the said reports, learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the expert opinion placed on record, goes contrary to the Board of Secondary Education publications and some of the opinions shown do not refer to certain text books which have been published by the Board. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that the expert committee is required to submit its report in consonance with the text books which are relevant as per syllabus and answers should be limited in accordance with the facts as mentioned in the various chapters of the text books as published by the Board. Learned counsel submits that, therefore, the matter should be re-examined at the level of the Board with reference to the text books. 10. Learned counsels have relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. vs. Rahul Singh & Anr., (2018) 7 SCC 254 , and have further relied on the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Richal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors., (2018) 8 SCC 81 . 11. I have considered the submissions. 12. In Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., (2018) 2 SCC 357 , the Apex Court was dealing with the issue relating to almost identical dispute raised in reference to answer keys. After considering the law, the Supreme Court 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 scrutinize 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 not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize 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. 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. 34. 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. 34. Having come to the conclusion that the High Court (the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench) ought to have been far more circumspect in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key answers, the situation today is that there is a third evaluation of the answer sheets and a third set of results is now ready for declaration. Given this scenario, the options before us are to nullify the entire re-evaluation process and depend on the result declared on 14th September, 2010 or to go by the third set of results. Canceling the examination is not an option. Whichever option is chosen, there will be some candidates who are likely to suffer and lose their jobs while some might be entitled to consideration for employment." 13. In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. : (2018) 7 SCC 254 , the Supreme Court 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. 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. 15. In view of the above discussion we are clearly of the view that the High Court over stepped its jurisdiction by giving the directions which amounted to setting aside the decision of experts in the field. As far as the objection of the Appellant-Rahul Singh is concerned, after going through the question on which he raised an objection, we ourselves are of the prima facie view that the answer given by the Commission is correct." 14. In Richal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. : (2018) 8 SCC 81 , the Supreme Court called for the report of the expert committee and directed a fresh expert committee to examine the matter and after considering the same accept the new report of the expert committee and directed to revise the result. In the recent judgment passed by three judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan 2020 (13) SCALE 689 , While considering the aforesaid judgments, the three judges Bench distinguished Richal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. (2018) 8 SCC 81 and proceeded to observe as under: "12. In the recent judgment passed by three judges Bench of the Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan 2020 (13) SCALE 689 , While considering the aforesaid judgments, the three judges Bench distinguished Richal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. (2018) 8 SCC 81 and proceeded to observe as under: "12. The learned counsel for the Commission refuting the submissions of the appellants submitted that almost all the grievances having been taken care of by the Expert Committee and the result of non-selected candidates having been revised, nothing more needs to be considered in these appeals. It is submitted that experts having revised the key answers and having now submitted a report, which has been accepted by the Commission, this Court shall not permit the appellants to re-challenge the decision of the Expert Committee. It is submitted that out of all the special leave petitioners, only 48 have been found selected. 13. We have considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties and perused the records". 15. Keeping in view above law, this court is satisfied that the respondent-Board has conducted a sufficient exercise to reach to its satisfaction that the answer key which finally has been published is in accordance with the syllabus as well as for the expert opinion received by it from subject experts. No interference can be made to such report of the expert committee as this court does not have the expertise to substitute its own opinion to that arrived at by an expert committee. If there are two different views based on two different authors, it is the expert of the subject, who would be entitled to take a decision. 16. This court would not in judicial review set aside such a decision. The scope of judicial review has been well settled by the Supreme Court in the case of West Bengal Central School Service Commission & Ors. vs. Abdul Halim & Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 4504 , wherein it was held as under:- "30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. vs. Abdul Halim & Ors., reported in AIR 2019 SC 4504 , wherein it was held as under:- "30. In exercise of its power of judicial review, the Court is to see whether the decision impugned is vitiated by an apparent error of law. The test to determine whether a decision is vitiated by error apparent on the face of the record is whether the error is self-evident on the face of the record or whether the error requires examination or argument to establish it. If an error has to be established by a process of reasoning, on points where there may reasonably be two opinions, it cannot be said to be an error on the face of the record, as held by this Court in Satyanarayan vs. Mallikarjuna reported in AIR 1960 SC 137 . If the provision of a statutory Rule is reasonably capable of two or more constructions and one construction has been adopted, the decision would not be open to interference by the writ Court. It is only an obvious misinterpretation of a relevant statutory provision, or ignorance or disregard thereof, or a decision founded on reasons which are clearly wrong in law, which can be corrected by the writ Court by issuance of writ of Certiorari." 17. Thus, it is the decision making process which can be examined in judicial review and not the ultimate decision. 18. In view of the above, these writ petitions fail and the same are accordingly dismissed. No costs. 19. If there is any interim order, the same shall also stand vacated. The respondents shall now proceed accordingly as per their result and complete the exercise of appointments within three months. 20. All pending applications shall also stand disposed of.