JUDGMENT : The petitioner has approached this Court for the following reliefs :- I. To add two marks for correct answer of Question No.11 in Part- B, Section-I where originally 8 out of 10 marks was awarded to the petitioner, but subsequently 8 was strike off and 6 marks was inserted. II. Further the respondents may be directed to award two marks for question No.13 (XI) in Part-B Section-II, wherein correct option was written by the petitioner, which would enhance the total marks obtained by the petitioner from 205 to 209 and further to publish the petitioner’s name in the list of successful candidates on the basis of the cut-off marks being 206. III. Be pleased to hold that the total marks obtained by the petitioner was not written in both of his Answer Sheets being Paper-1 and Paer-2 although the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner by JPSC shows total marks including the Sports Achievement Marks and Interview marks altogether as 205, which smacks of connivance, accommodativeness, bias, malafide and arbitrariness as upon totaling of the marks obtained from the above two questions, petitioner would be getting a total marks of 209 in BC-II Category. IV. Be pleased to direct the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to issue and publish the Answer Key of the objective type question as the same has not been uploaded through the Final Result was declared in March, 2020. V. Be pleased to direct the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to publish fresh merit list. VI. Be pleased to direct the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to award two marks for giving correct answer to question No.13 (XIII) of Paper I. VII. Be pleased to direct the respondent-Jharkhand Public Service Commission to produce the Answer Sheet of Paper-I and Paper-II of the petitioner before this Hon’ble Court. VIII. Be pleased to stay the process of appointment of District Sport Officer in pursuance of the aforesaid Advertisement No.12/2017 on the recommendation of the JPSC. IX. Be pleased to reserve one seat under BC-II Category till the final disposal of the instant writ petition. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An Advertisement being Advertisement No.12/2017 was floated by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ‘JPSC’) for appointment of 24 District Sports Officers i.e. one post for each District. Out of the 24 posts, only 1 post was reserved for BC-II Category. 2. The case of the petitioner lies in a narrow compass. An Advertisement being Advertisement No.12/2017 was floated by the Jharkhand Public Service Commission (hereinafter to be referred as ‘JPSC’) for appointment of 24 District Sports Officers i.e. one post for each District. Out of the 24 posts, only 1 post was reserved for BC-II Category. Pursuant to the same, the petitioner having all the requisite qualification, applied for the said post of District Sports Officer and thereafter, appeared in the written examination, in which he was declared successful. Thereafter, e-call letter was issued for appearing in the documents verification drive scheduled on 04.02.2020 and interview on 05.02.2020, in which the petitioner appeared. Thereafter, results were published, the petitioner had obtained 175 marks out of 400 in written examination, 8 marks out of 30 marks in sports achievement and 22 marks out of 30 marks in interview and thus he has obtained total of 205 marks in the said examination, whereas cut off marks for BC-II candidate was 206 marks only. Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner on 19.05.2020 had applied to view his evaluated Answer Sheet of Paper-I and Paper-II under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but no response has been given by the Public Information Officer, JPSC, Ranchi. Aggrieved by the same, he preferred First Appeal on 01.07.2020 before the First Appellate Authority, JPSC, thereafter, JPSC vide its letter dated 16.07.2020 had informed the petitioner that on 08.09.2020 at 12:00 pm in the office of JPSC, the petitioner can view his evaluated Answer Sheets. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared on the said date in the office of the JPSC. Upon seeing the Answer-sheet of Paper-I and Paper-II, on 11.09.2021, the petitioner represented before the Controller of Examination, JPSC that there are certain anomalies in evaluating the Answer-sheet of the petitioner as he had seen that “in Paper-I, despite giving correct answer for question no. 13 (XIII) having 2 marks, it has been marked wrong and no marks were given and in Paper-I, the petitioner was initially given 8 mark out of 10 for writing answer to question no. 13 (XIII) having 2 marks, it has been marked wrong and no marks were given and in Paper-I, the petitioner was initially given 8 mark out of 10 for writing answer to question no. 11, which has been strike off and 6 marks were given to him and no reason has been stated as to why marks were deducted, subsequently after awarding him 8 marks” and as such, requested to correct the same and publish the fresh final result of the examination, but no heed was paid. Hence, the petitioner has been constrained to knock the door of this Court. 3. Mr. R.N. Sahay, learned Sr. counsel assisted by Mr. Yashvardhan, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the marks obtained by the petitioner for attempting and writing question No.11 of Part-B, Section-I was originally written as 8 marks, but subsequently was reduced to 6 marks without assigning any reason and without any endorsement of the Examiner and Controlling Authority and as such, 2 marks were deducted, which is not tenable in the eyes of law as there was only one post reserved for BC-II Category and to favour the respondent No.6, the marks of the petitioner was reduced. He further submits that petitioner had given correct answer to question No.13 (XIII) in Paper-I of Section-II, but the same has been marked wrong and no marks were allotted and if the aforesaid marks are added, then his total marks will be increased from 205 to 209 and petitioner will be selected in the said category. The respondent No.6 obtained exactly 206 marks, which is the cut off marks for the post of District Sports Officer, whereas the petitioner’s marks was reduced to 205 mark. The sports achievement marks of respondent No. 6 is 0/30 and interview marks is 10/30, therefore, only to favor the respondent No.6, marks of the respondent No.6 was enhanced in written examination and petitioner’s marks was reduced. The respondent-JPSC has not published the answer key of the objective type questions, they are duty bound to publish the answer-key. The denial of the respondents to re-evaluate the Answer-sheet of the petitioner shows dereliction of duty that deliberate in action and malafide on part of the respondents. Those candidates, who gave wrong answers particularly to the question No.13 (XIII) of Part B Section II of the first paper have been selected. Learned Sr. The denial of the respondents to re-evaluate the Answer-sheet of the petitioner shows dereliction of duty that deliberate in action and malafide on part of the respondents. Those candidates, who gave wrong answers particularly to the question No.13 (XIII) of Part B Section II of the first paper have been selected. Learned Sr. counsel further argues that deliberately the respondents reduced the marks of the petitioner from 209 to 205 i.e. just one marks less than respondent No.6, which speaks of favourtism. 4. Learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner further argues that Jharkhand Public Service Commission being the examination conducting body is duty bound to publish the answer key specially in this particular case, when the entire examination process is over, the candidates are entitled to know the correct answer key on basis of which the merit list has been prepared. In the instant case, only two candidates are contesting upon one question and as such, in the interest of justice, re-evaluation of answer key may be directed. 5. To buttress his argument, learned counsel for the petitioner placed heavy reliance on the following judgments of Hon’ble Apex Court : I. Rajesh Kumar Vs. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690 . II. Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 III. Anil Kumar Sharma Vs. State of Bihar, (2020) SCC Online Pat 2475. 6. Per contra counter-affidavits have been filed. 7. Mr. Sanjoy Piprawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Jharkhand Public Service Commission vehemently opposes the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner and submits that the petitioner has secured less marks than the last successful candidate in his category i.e. BC-II Category. After the publication of the results, name of successful candidates have also been recommended by the JPSC to State Government and they have been appointed by the State Govt. and as such, the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.12/2017 has already been completed. He further submits that Part-B of Paper-I is subjective type question and marks has to be awarded by the examiner after evaluation of the answer sheet of the candidates and Examiner as well as Head Examiner have power to enhance or reduce the marks and as such, the prayer made by the petitioner is fit to be rejected. He further submits that Part-B of Paper-I is subjective type question and marks has to be awarded by the examiner after evaluation of the answer sheet of the candidates and Examiner as well as Head Examiner have power to enhance or reduce the marks and as such, the prayer made by the petitioner is fit to be rejected. So far as prayer for grant of 2 marks for question No.13 (XIII) of Part B Section II of first paper is concerned, the said Paper is objective type question and same has to be evaluated as per the model answer provided by the subject experts. In the instant case, Section II of Part B of Paper- I was also evaluated on the basis of model answer provided by the subject experts. Further, even if it is presumed that there is some error in the model answer on that ground the answer sheets cannot be re-evaluated again in view of the fact that if there is any error in the answer sheet/options, same are common for all candidates. Mr. Piprawal further argues that first paper of DSO-Examination had 2 parts, 1st part was having subjective type questions whereas in 2nd part only objective type of questions with multiple choice was given and if there is combination of subjective and objective type questions in any examination paper, there is no provision for publication of model answer for the objective type questions and objective type questions are evaluated on the basis of model answer as provided by the subject experts. It is well settled law that if there is discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing in the examination and on this ground, examination cannot be cancelled. He further submits that there is no illegality in conducting the examination, preparation of the merit list and publication of result and as such, instant writ petition is fit to be dismissed. He lastly submits that when the petitioner has not been declared successful in BC-II Category, he is questioning the selection process, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 8. Mr. He lastly submits that when the petitioner has not been declared successful in BC-II Category, he is questioning the selection process, which is not permissible in the eyes of law. 8. Mr. Mohan Kumar Dubey, learned counsel for appearing on behalf of the respondent-State submits that after the recommendation of Jharkhand Public Service Commission, the State has issued appointment letters to the successful candidates after verification of records and they have been posted in different districts as District Sports Officers, the said Respondent No.6 has also joined the aforesaid post in Koderma District on 19.10.2020 itself. 9. Mr. Rajendra Krishna, learned counsel for the respondent No.6 submits that the prayer made by the petitioner cannot be allowed since the petitioner cannot pray for issuance of writ of mandamus to add or subtract the marks given to the petitioner in the selection test in which he appeared and he was not selected for appointment. The selection process has already been completed and respondent No.6 along with others are working, therefore, there is no requirement of impleading respondent No.6 only as respondent. The petitioner has grievance regarding awarding of marks, which is in exclusive domain of JPSC and the respondent No.6 is totally ignorant of the facts. The respondent No.6 has rightly been selected in BC-II Category since he has got the required cut-off marks for selection to the said post. He further submits that this Hon’ble Court sitting under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot adjudicate the issue as only the specialized body can tell as to whether answer given is correct or incorrect. The respondent No.6 has not been favoured in any manner, the allegation of favouritism is completely baseless. 10. Be that as it may, having gone through the rival submissions of the parties and on perusal of the records, it appears that the issues involved in this writ petition is no more res integra as the same has already been decided in plethora of judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court as well as this Court. The main prayer of the petitioner is for re-evaluation of the answer-sheet/marks as well as for awarding additional marks. Petitioner is also aggrieved by subsequent reduction of two marks. The petitioner was originally given 8 out of 10 marks, but subsequently, 8 was strike off and 6 marks was inserted by the respondent-JPSC. The main prayer of the petitioner is for re-evaluation of the answer-sheet/marks as well as for awarding additional marks. Petitioner is also aggrieved by subsequent reduction of two marks. The petitioner was originally given 8 out of 10 marks, but subsequently, 8 was strike off and 6 marks was inserted by the respondent-JPSC. The petitioner has also thrown challenge to the appointment of respondent No.6 and has alleged favoritism and nepotism against the JPSC. Admittedly, the petitioner has thrown challenge only after he has been declared unsuccessful in the said examination for appointment to the post of District Sports Officer. The name of the successful candidates have already been recommended by the JPSC to the State Government and they have been appointed by the State Government and as such, the selection process pursuant to Advertisement No.12/2017 is already over and concluded. In catena of decisions, it has been observed that if there is discrepancy in framing the questions or evaluation of the question, it could be for all the candidates appearing in the examination and on this count examination/results cannot be cancelled. The Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 , has been that:- 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. 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. 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. 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. 33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the learned Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible. Fortunately, the Division Bench did not repeat the error but in a sense, endorsed the view of the learned Single Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but sending four key answers for consideration by a one-man Expert Committee. 11. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Anr., reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 , has been held thus :- 20 In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers 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 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. 24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. 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. 24. The issue of revaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, wherein this Court rejected the contention that in the absence of the provision for revaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/revaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: (SCC pp. 39-40 & 42, paras 14 & 16) “14. … It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act. … * * * 16. … The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that, in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.” 12. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rishal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81 , has held thus:- 14. The issue which has been canvassed in this batch of appeals relates to correctness of final key answers as uploaded by the Commission after considering objections thereto. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Rishal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission, reported in (2018) 8 SCC 81 , has held thus:- 14. The issue which has been canvassed in this batch of appeals relates to correctness of final key answers as uploaded by the Commission after considering objections thereto. The appellants’ case is that the treatment of the objections by the Expert Committee was not based on authoritative textbooks on the subject and several errors crept into the answer key vitiating the merits of the candidates affecting the entire selection. 19. The key answers prepared by the paper-setter or the examining body is presumed to have been prepared after due deliberations. To err is human. There are various factors which may lead to framing of the incorrect key answers. The publication of key answers is a step to achieve transparency and to give an opportunity to candidates to assess the correctness of their answers. An opportunity to file objections against the key answers uploaded by examining body is a step to achieve fairness and perfection in the process. The objections to the key answers are to be examined by the experts and thereafter corrective measures, if any, should be taken by the examining body. In the present case, we have noted that after considering the objections final key answers were published by the Commission thereafter several writ petitions were filed challenging the correctness of the key answers adopted by the Commission. The High Court repelled the challenge accepting the views of the experts. The candidates still unsatisfied, have come up in this Court by filing these appeals. 13. Further, the Hon’ble Apex Court in case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Ors., reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 , has held thus:- 14. Though re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit, this Court has deprecated the practice of re-evaluation and scrutiny of the questions by the courts which lack expertise in academic matters. It is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly when the Commission has assessed the inter se merit of the candidates (H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur). Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations (see Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh). 15. Courts have to show deference and consideration to the recommendation of the expert committee who have the expertise to evaluate and make recommendations (see Basavaiah v. H.L. Ramesh). 15. Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to reevaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. held that the court should not re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matters and the academic matters are best left to academics. This Court in the said judgment further held as follows: (Ran Vijay Singh case, SCC pp. 369- 70, paras 31-32) “31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing reevaluation 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. 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. 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.” 14. This Court, after taking into consideration the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the cases referred hereinabove and going through the factual aspects involved in this case, even accepting that some discrepancies has crept in the evaluation process or answer key, but such discrepancies as per the argument advanced on behalf of the respondent-JPSC, is for all candidates, therefore, no prejudice can be said to be caused to the petitioner. When selection is made by the Commission aided and advised by experts having technical experience and high academic qualifications in the specialist field, probing teaching research experience in technical subjects, the Courts should be slow to interfere with the opinion expressed by experts unless there are allegations of mala fide against them. It would normally be prudent and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts, who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally can be. The facts about treating all the candidates with respect to the question, which contains the wrong answers along with the petitioner is concerned, even if the marks would be added for question no. The facts about treating all the candidates with respect to the question, which contains the wrong answers along with the petitioner is concerned, even if the marks would be added for question no. 13 (XIII) in favour of the petitioner, the same would also be awarded to other candidates and in that view of the matter, there will be no change in the merit position as existing on the date as because according to the petitioner, he is short of just one or two marks from the last selected candidate and if one or two marks would be awarded to the petitioner, the same would be awarded to the successful candidate as well, therefore, the fact remains the same with respect to the position of the petitioner in comparison to the successful candidate. 15. Further, the Court of law, being not an expert in the subject, is not expected to superimpose its opinion upon the opinion expressed by the expert and keeping the aforesaid proposition of law into consideration, the relief sought for pertaining to how the petitioner has been awarded 6 marks instead of 8 marks, no direction can be passed by this Court since 8 marks has been assessed in the subject by the Examiner, which has been subsequently reduced to 6 marks by the Head/Chief Examiner. 16. Further, as per the settled proposition of law, re-evaluation can be directed if rules permit and in absence of any Rule, it would be folly on the part of this Court and amounts to exceeding the jurisdiction of this Court permitting re-evaluation and directing the respondent-JPSC for conciliation of the case of the petitioner, by re-evaluating the answer-sheets. 17. From the aforesaid observation, rules, guidelines and judicial pronouncements, the argument advanced by the learned Sr. counsel for petitioner is not acceptable to this Court and as such, it can be comfortably inferred that since the examination is over and the results have been published and all the selected candidates have been appointed and joined and also no rules have been brought on record to show that there could be re-evaluation of the answer-sheet, no interference is warranted in the instant case. 18. Resultantly, writ petition stands dismissed. No order as to costs.