ORDER : Common questions of facts and law are involved in these petitions, hence both the petitions have been heard and are being decided together by a common judgment. 2. Respondent–Himachal Pradesh Staff Selection Commission (for short ‘HPSSC’) issued advertisement No.36- 3/2020 inviting online applications for direct recruitment of various categories of posts mentioned therein, which included the posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) against Post Code 826 for Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. 3. Petitioners in both the petitions applied for the above noted posts and appeared in the written objective test held on 11.4.2021. The HPSSC circulated provisional answer key after the conduct of written objective test, calling upon the candidates to submit their objections on or before 23.4.2021. 4. Petitioners herein allege that they submitted their respective objections, to the provisional answer key, circulated by the HPSSC, but their objections have not been rightly considered and consequently they have not found place in the list of 119 selected candidates whose names have been declared vide notification dated 25.8.2021. 5. Petitioners have prayed for directions to HPSSC to re-assess their objections and to grant them marks by correcting the answer key accordingly. Quashing of notification dated 25.8.2021 has also been sought. 6. The counselling for final selection of candidates for 39 posts of Junior Engineer (Civil) in Himachal Pradesh State Electricity Board Ltd. (for short ‘HPSEBL’) has been scheduled to be held on 8.9.2021. Keeping in view the urgency in the matter, on 02.09.2021 and 03.09.2021, this Court passed the orders in respective petitions of petitioners directing the HPSSC to file reply/instructions on 07.09.2021. 7. Today, the HPSSC has submitted written instructions. Specific stand taken by it is that in response to the objections invited to the provisional answer key, the petitioner Upanshu Sharma in CWP No. 4999 of 2021 did not submit his objections within prescribed seven days, whereas, the objections of petitioner Vikas Chaudhary in CWP No. 5027 of 2021 were received within time. Besides petitioners, many other candidates had submitted their objections. All such objections were referred to a panel of experts in accordance with condition No.14 (iii) of the advertisement. After evaluation by the expert panel, certain answers were corrected and the final answer key was published. 8. Condition No.14 (iii) of the advertisement reads as under: “14.(iii). Besides petitioners, many other candidates had submitted their objections. All such objections were referred to a panel of experts in accordance with condition No.14 (iii) of the advertisement. After evaluation by the expert panel, certain answers were corrected and the final answer key was published. 8. Condition No.14 (iii) of the advertisement reads as under: “14.(iii). The provisional answer key of each Written Screening Test (Objective Type) will be uploaded on the official website after the freezing of the answer sheets of the candidates for calling objections from the candidates. Seven day’s time shall be given for inviting objections in the answer key, if any. The objections will be got vetted through an expert panel and the result will be finalized as per the revised answer key.” 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the records. 10. Petitioner in CWP No. 4999 of 2021 had objected to nine answers in the provisional answer key and as per the instructions submitted by the HPSSC, six answers were corrected after evaluation by expert panel. Petitioner in CWP No. 5027 of 2021 had also raised nine objections, out of which, four were upheld. Despite the corrections in the answer key, as noted above, petitioners have remained unsuccessful. 11. Once, the objections submitted by petitioners to the provisional answer key have been considered by a panel of experts, this Court in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, will not venture to impose its own opinion. 12. The powers of this Court to have opinion different to that of the experts, in the matter of evaluation of answers in competitive examination, is well defined. In this context, reference can be made to the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others (1984) 4 SCC 27 , wherein it has held as under: “29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case.” 13. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur and another (2010) 6 SCC 759 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under: “20. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” 14. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court.” 14. In Central Board of Secondary Education through Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination and others vs. Khushboo Shrivastava and others (2014) 14 SCC 523 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while noticing the judgment in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education case (supra) has held as under: “11. In our considered opinion, neither the learned Single Judge nor the Division Bench of the High Court could have substituted his/its own views for that of the examiners and awarded two additional marks to Respondent 1 for the two answers in exercise of powers of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution as these are purely academic matters…….” 15. A Division Bench of this Court in Rustam Garg and others vs. Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission, ILR 2016 Vol. (2) 591, while dealing with an identical proposition has held as under: “17. In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, we have no doubt in our mind that even when the revised key answers are impugned with respect to questions relating to the subject of law, it is not permissible for this Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. It is not for the Court to take upon itself the task of the statutory authorities and substitute its own opinion for that of the experts.” 16. The power of judicial review vested in this Court is otherwise circumscribed and can be exercised only to examine the legality of decision making process as held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Tata Cellular vs. Union of India 1994 (6) SCC 651 . No challenge has been laid in present proceedings to the decision making process, therefore, this Court will not venture into the merits of the decision taken by the competent authority. 17. Keeping in view the above noted exposition of law, the reliefs claimed by petitioners are not permissible. The objections of petitioners have already been considered by a panel of experts. 17. Keeping in view the above noted exposition of law, the reliefs claimed by petitioners are not permissible. The objections of petitioners have already been considered by a panel of experts. Petitioners have not been able to show any provision in the rules, governing the process of selection, from which they may derive a right to seek such a relief. 18. The claim of the petitioner in CWP No. 4999 of 2021 otherwise will not be maintainable as he had failed to submit his objections within the prescribed period of seven days. The factual position in this regard has not been denied by the learned counsel representing petitioner in the above noticed petition. 19. Accordingly, we do not find any merit in these petitions and the same are dismissed, so also the pending miscellaneous applications, if any, leaving the parties to bear their own costs.