ORDER : 1. The instant intra court appeal has been preferred by the appellant Ms. Suman Kumari being aggrieved of the order dated 29.03.2022 passed by learned Single Bench whereby, the writ petition preferred by the petitioner (a) Seeking to question revised answer key issued by the Rajasthan Subordinate and Ministerial Service Selection Board for recruitment on the post of Agriculture Supervisor pursuant to the advertisement dated 05.02.2021; (b) Seeking direction for preparation of a fresh answer key for considering objections raised by the writ petitioner for the disputed questions; (c) To ignore the erroneous answers based on the material produced by the writ petitioner; (d) re-evaluate the answer sheets and issuance of a fresh select list of provisionally selected candidates, was rejected. 2. The writ petition (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4011/2022) preferred by the petitioner was rejected by the learned Single Bench by recording concession of the counsel that the controversy involved in the writ petition was squarely covered by the ratio of the judgment in the case of Phoosgir & Ors. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.17265/2021) and other connected matters which had been dismissed vide order dated 23.03.2022 and thus, the writ petition of the petitioner may also be dismissed in light of the above judgment. 3. Learned counsel representing the appellant petitioner, vehemently and fervently contended that dismissal of Phoosgir’s writ petition would not per se, disentitle the petitioner from raising her genuine grievances regarding the faulty/vague questions. He urged that some of the disputed questions which were propsoedin the featured recruitment process, were also incorporated in another recruitment process undertaken by Uttar Pradesh Police Department and if a comparative analysis is made of the question paper/ answer key of the present recruitment process and that adopted by the Uttar Pradesh Police Department, an apparent discrepancy is visible which entitles the writ petitioner appellant to question the bonafides of the decision taken by the respondents in issuing revised answer key. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record. 5. 4. We have given our thoughtful consideration to the submissions advanced at bar and, have gone through the material available on record. 5. At the outset, it may be noted here that since the writ petition of the appellant petitioner has been decided on the basis of ratio of judgment of Phoosgir, it would be apt to reproduce the conclusions drawn by the learned Single Bench while resolving the controversy presented in the said case :- “Learned counsel for the parties were heard on the various questions. The petitioners have filed extracts from books/material seeking to support their contentions in relation to the validity of the questions/answers and the decision of the expert committee thereon. The petitioners have filed extracts from books/material seeking to support their contentions in relation to the validity of the questions/answers and the decision of the expert committee thereon. It would be appropriate to reproduce the disputed questions, the final answer based on decision of the expert committee and view of the expert committee : Question No.2 : fdl fodYi ds leLrin dk lekl&foxzg vlaxr gS\ ¼,½ frjlB & rhu vkSj lkB ¼ch½ eqfuJs"B & Js"B gS tks eqfu ¼lh½ iapik= & iap ¼ikap½ ik=ksa dk lewg ¼Mh½ ns'kHkfDr & ns'k dh HkfDr Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (B) View of the expert committee : eqfuJs"B dk lekl&foxzg ^eqfu;ksa esa Js"B* gksxkA vr% ;s vlaxr gSA tcfd fodYi esa ^Js"B gS tks eqfu* vafdr gSA vr% ;g vlaxr gSA Question No.5 : fuEu esa ls v'kq) okD; dk p;u dhft, & ¼,½ eSaus jk/kk dks ,d iqLrd lefiZr dhA ¼ch½ izR;sd O;fDr dks lkfRod thou thuk pkfg,A ¼lh½ d`i;k njoktk can djus dk d"V djsaA ¼Mh½ ;g dke dksbZ odhy ls gh gks ldrk gSA Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (D) View of the expert committee : vk;ksx }kjk fn;k x;k mÙkj fodYi ^Mh* lgh gSA fo|kfFkZ;ksa us lekukFkhZ ds vk/kkj ij tks rdZ fn;s gSa] os d`i;k vkSj d"V ds lanHkZ esa mfpr ugha gSA vr% fo|kfFkZ;ksa ds vkCtsD'ku ekU; ugha gSA Question No.9 : vFkZ dh n`f"V ls dkSu&lh yksdksfDr vlaxr gS\ ¼,½ dkSvk pys gal dh pky & fcuk lksps≤>s vuqlj.k djuk ¼ch½ dgk¡ jktk Hkkst] dgk¡ xaxw rsyh & nks vleku O;fDr;ksa dh rqyuk ¼lh½ tSls lk¡iukFk] oSls ukxukFk & nks O;fDr;ksa esa ,d&ls voxq.k gksuk ¼Mh½ Vds dh pVkbZ] ukS Vdk fonkbZ & /kS;Z u j[kuk Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (Delete) View of the expert committee : 1- fganh O;kdj.k ,oa jpuk&izcks/k ¼d{kk 9] 10] 11 o 12 ds fy,½ ek/;fed f'k{kk cksMZ jktLFkku] vtesj & la;kstd & MkW- f'ko'kj.k dkSf'kd & i`"B la[;k 146 ij dkSvk pys gal dh pky yksdksfDr dk vFkZ & fdlh vkSj dk vuqlj.k dj viukiu [kksukA fn;k gqvk gS ysfdu fodYi esa fcuk lksps le>s vuqlj.k djuk fy[kk gSA nksuksa esa lekurk ugha gSA vr% cPpksa dk vkWCtsD'ku lgh gSA Question No.18: Recently which wildlife sanctuary of Rajasthan has been approved the 4th Tiger Reserve of state? (A) Todgarh-Raoli (B) Ramgarh Vishdhari (C) Bassi (D) Tal Chhapar View of the expert committee : Within syllabus as ^^ikB;Øe ds ikVZ&2 esa jktLFkku dk lkekU; Kku gS ,oa HkkSxksfyd v/;;u esa Hkh oU;tho vH;kj.; vkrk gSA** Question No.25 : Bhadla Solar Park is located at - (A)- Jaisalmer (B)- Jodhpur (C)- Barmer (D)- Jalore View of the expert committee : Within syllabus as ^^ikB;Øe ds ikVZ&2 esa jktLFkku dk lkekU; Kku esa HkM+yk lksyj ikdZ vkrk gS& lkekU; Kku esa ;s lHkh lfEefyr gSA** Question No.32: Who is the Chairman of the Rajasthan State Human Rights Commission ? (A)- C.K. Dave (B)- Niranjan Arya (C)- Bhupendra Yadav (D)- G.K. Vyas View of the expert committee : Within syllabus as "This question is related to G.K. of Rajasthan." Question No.38: Badland Topography can be observed in Rajasthan, in – (A)- Kota and Bundi (B)- Jaisalmer & Barmer. (C)- Ganganagar & Hanumangarh (D)-Sawai Madhopur, Karauli & Dholpur. Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (D) View of the expert committee : iz'u esa mR[kkr Hkwfe LFkykd`fr jkt- esa dksVk] lokbZek/kksiqj] djkSyh] /kkSyiqj esa gS] ij fodYi esa ^Mh* lgh gS ftlesa l- ek/kksiqj] djkSyh] /kkSyiqj ftys gSA blesa ^,^ fodYi ugha gks ldrk D;ksafd dksVk ds lkFk cawnh ftyk gSA vr% ^Mh* fodYi lgh gSA Question No.42 : How much urea (kg) will be required, for 1 hectare area, at the rate of 150 kg nitrogen per hectare application ? (A)- 3255 kg (B)- 325 kg (C)- 690 kg (D)- 306 kg Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (A) View of the expert committee : As per formula and nitrogen content in urea (cdHH2)2 it is approximately 3255 kg. Question No.45: Indian Meteorological Department was established in 1875, with headquarter at –established in 1875, with headquarter at – (A)- Jaipur (B)- Pune (C)- New Delhi (D)- Calcutta Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (D) Expert committee has relied on excerpt from the website of Indian Meteorological Department, Ministry of Earth Sciences, Government of India under heading ‘History of Meteorological Services in India’, it is inter-alia indicated as under :- “In the year 1875, the Government of India established the India Meteorological Department, bringing all meteorological work in the country under a central authority. Mr. H.F. Blanford was appointed Meteorological Reporter to the Government of India. Mr. H.F. Blanford was appointed Meteorological Reporter to the Government of India. The first Director General of Observatories was Sir John Eliot who was appointed in May 1889 at Calcutta headquarters. The headquarters of IMD were later shifted to Shimla, then to Poona (now Pune) and finally to New Delhi.” Question No.49 : What will be the percentage of porosity of a soil which has 1.5g/cm3 bulk density and 2.65 g/cm3 particle density? (A)- 38 (B)- 40 (C)- 42 (D)- 36 Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (Delete) View of the expert committee : Handbook of Agriculture by ICAR Sixth Rev. Ed. 2009 Page No.189, the calculated value by formula and given value it is 43.4. In give opinions no value or opinion. It is suggested for deletion. Question No.68: Liquorice is also known as - (A)- Isabgol (B)- Mulethi (C)- Ashwagandha (D)- None of these Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (B) Court : Qua the above question submissions have been made that option ‘C’ in a particular series of Question Booklet has been wrongly placed, which should have been at the end, however, the expert committee found that as option ‘B’ was correct, which was common in all series of Question Booklet, the placing of the option had no implication. Question No.82 : Which of the following is used as a purgative in animals ? (A)- Magnesium Sulphate (B)- Aluminium Hydroxide (C)- Castor oil (D)- All of the above Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (Delete) View of the expert committee : Objection accepted, The question may be deleted. Reference attached Essentials of Veterinary Pharmacology and Therapeutics, Second Edition by Harpal Singh Sandhu Pg. 42 & 43. Question No.86: Out of the following drugs, which is most common anthelmintic drug used in animals? (A)- Meloxicam (B)- Oxytetracycline (C)- Ivermectin (D)- Potassium permanganate Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (C) View of the expert committee : In the option ‘A’ Meloxicam is a nonsteroid antimflamatory drug. In option ‘B’ it is a broad spectrum antibiotics. In option 'C' Ivermectin is most common drug used as anthelmintics. In option 'D' Potassium permanganate is oxidizing agent. Therefore, the objection raised that all drug mentioned in the option cannot be used as anthelmintic drug. It is only Ivermectin that is most commonly used as anthelmintic drug. In option ‘B’ it is a broad spectrum antibiotics. In option 'C' Ivermectin is most common drug used as anthelmintics. In option 'D' Potassium permanganate is oxidizing agent. Therefore, the objection raised that all drug mentioned in the option cannot be used as anthelmintic drug. It is only Ivermectin that is most commonly used as anthelmintic drug. Reference enclosed. Question No.90 : Exotic breed of goat among the following is- (A)-Toggenburg (B)- Barbari (C)-Jamunapari (D)- Beetal Final Answer based on decision of the expert committee : (A) View of the expert committee : Reference attached as NBAGR has declared under registered breed of India. Toggenburg is a exotic breed. Qua question Nos.18, 25 & 32 submissions have been made that the syllabus for the exam only indicates General Knowledge, whereas the questions pertain to General Awareness and as such the questions being beyond syllabus, deserve to be deleted. While General Knowledge means knowledge about a wide range of subjects, General Awareness means knowledge about the present happenings. Further while answers to the General Knowledge questions are almost fixed, the answers to the General Awareness questions depend upon happenings/news around the world. The expert committee has dealt with the objections appropriately. A look at the objected questions would reveal that none of the said questions would per se fall within the category of General Awareness and as such the objections raised in this regard also have no substance. From the above, it is apparent that the expert committee has thoroughly examined the objections as raised by the petitioners and have reached to a particular conclusion. The petitioners have made submissions based on the material produced by them in support of their claim in relation to each question and the expert committee has referred to/relied on material in support of the conclusion arrived at by them. As out of two materials produced by the petitioners and considered by the expert committee, which material should be relied on, essentially is in the domain of the expert committee and this Court, possibly cannot after the expert committee has arrived at a particular conclusion, opine otherwise, unless the decision made thereon is found to be wholly arbitrary and/or contrary to the material relied on, which in the present case does not appear to be the case. The parameters for exercise of the jurisdiction by this Court, qua the expert committee opinion, have been repeatedly laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Division bench of this Court. The principle laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the latest being in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors. : (2021) 2 SCC 309 as followed by the Division Bench in Rajkamal Basitha v. Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur & Ors. : D.B.C.W.P. No.11347/2021, decided on 21.02.2022 (at Jaipur Bench) is well settled. The Division Bench in the case of Rajkamal Basitha (supra) observed as under :- "It is well settled through series of judgments of the Supreme Court that the judicial review of the decision of the examining body be it in the filed of education or in the recruitment to the public employment, is extremely limited. Particularly when the examination is being conducted by an expert body and disputed questions are scanned by specially constituted expert committee, the Courts are extremely slow in interfering with the decisions of such bodies. Unless it is pointed out that there is a glaring error or an irrational decision has been rendered the Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India would not interfere." Prior to that in RPSC v. Pankaj Raj : D.B.S.A.W. No.697/2019, decided on 29.05.2019 (at Jaipur Bench), the Division Bench while setting aside the judgment of the learned Single, inter-alia, observed as under :- "The impugned judgment in this Court's opinion is clearly erroneous inasmuch as the court has unwittingly donned the robe of the decision maker: to wit, that of an expert, in art, in concluding that one of the choices was defective (question No.11) and that the RPSC's explanation about a misprint was irrelevant, because the answer was wrongly given. These conclusions the court cannot arrive at, as they amount to primary decision making-a task which cannot be undertaken under Article 226. The impugned judgment also overlooked the salutary rule that in the event of doubt, "the benefit ought to go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate" (Ran Vijay, supra)." In another Division Bench judgment in Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Ors. The impugned judgment also overlooked the salutary rule that in the event of doubt, "the benefit ought to go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate" (Ran Vijay, supra)." In another Division Bench judgment in Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission : D.B.S.A.W. No.447/2020, decided on 21.10.2021, a case where the learned Single Judge had interfered with the decision of the expert committee, it was observed by the Division Bench as under:- "In our view, the learned Single Judge ought not to have interfered with the final conclusion of the expert body duly constituted by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission having expertise in the field. It is not necessary to refer to large number of decisions of this Court as well as of Supreme Court which essentially lay down that the interference by the High Court in matters of education and other technical fields should be kept to the minimum. Short reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Richal & Ors. Vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors. [ 2018 (8) SCC 81 ] would be sufficient." Very recently, when the learned Single Judge interfered with the decision made by the expert committee, in relation to the Rajasthan State & Subordinate Services Combined Competitive Examination held by the RPSC, the Division Bench in RPSC v. Ankit Sharma : D.B.S.A.W. No.429/2022, in its order dated 23.02.2022, after referring to the judgments in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. & Ors. : (2018) 2 SCC 357 , UPPSC v. Rahul Singh : (2018) 7 SCC 254 , Vikesh Kumar Gupta (supra), Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors. v. Arun Kumar & Ors. : (2020) 6 SCC 362 , inter-alia, observed while staying the order of the learned Single Judge, as under :- "14. We have referred to the consistent trend of the case law coming from the Supreme Court on the subject. Broadly the approach in such situation is that the scope of judicial review against expert’s opinion is extremely limited. There is a requirement of finality to the process of public employment. This is not to suggest that judicial review is completely shutout; it cannot be. However unless the situation presents a clear cut, black and white, open and shut choice of the decision of the expert body being palpably wrong, the Court would not interfere. There is a requirement of finality to the process of public employment. This is not to suggest that judicial review is completely shutout; it cannot be. However unless the situation presents a clear cut, black and white, open and shut choice of the decision of the expert body being palpably wrong, the Court would not interfere. An element of tolerance to the minor error or calibration is discernible since achieving certainty and finality is also important. The finality and perfection are sworn enemies. 15. With this legal clarity if we revert back to the questions with respect to which the learned Judge objected to the conclusions of RPSC, none of these questions would prima facie pass the muster of extremely high threshold provided by the Supreme Court in series of judgments noted above. In all cases the learned Single Judge has gone on at considerable length to discuss the view point of the petitioners and material produced by them in support of their contentions, what the expert committee had taken into account and why in the opinion of the learned Judge such conclusions were wrong. At this stage we are not inclined to go into these questions threadbare since we do not propose and we cannot decide these appeals finally. Nevertheless we have strong prima facie belief that the learned Judge had exceeded the scope of writ jurisdiction in the present case. No legal or factual malafides are demonstrated nor procedural illegality established. It may be that in some cases there is a grey area. That by itself would not be sufficient for the writ court to upturn the decision of the expert’s body." The Special Leave Petition filed against the Division Bench order came to be rejected by the Hon’ble Supreme Court on 14.03.2022. In view of above factual & legal position, wherein the expert committee, after considering the objections raised by the candidates, based on the relevant material, has made a decision regarding change in the answer as indicated in the preliminary answer key/maintaining the answer/deleting the question, for lack of any creditable challenge/glaring mistake falling within the parameters as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and Division Bench of this Court, no case for interference is made out.” 6. The discussion made by the learned Single Bench and conclusions drawn while rejecting the writ petition, are based on an apropos evaluation and the finding so recorded were taken on the basis of Judgment of Division Bench of this Court in the case of RPSC Vs. Ankit Sharma (DBSAW No.429/2022) decided on 23.02.2022 and the Supreme Court Judgments in the cases of Ran Vijay Singh Vs. State of U.P. & Ors. reported in (2018)2 SCC 357 ; UPPSC Vs. Rahul Singh reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254 ; Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Anr. Vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors. reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 and Bihar Staff Selection Commission & Ors. Vs. Arun Kumar & Ors. reported in (2020) 6 SCC 362 . 7. Recently, a Division Bench of this Court at Jaipur had the occasion to examine the similar controversy in a batch of writ petition led by D.B. Civil Writ Petition No.2253/2022 (Kavita Bhargava vs. Registrar Examination, Rajasthan High Court, Jodhpur arising out of recruitment on the post of Civil Judge Cadre. The said bunch of writ petitions came to be dismissed by a detailed Judgment-cum-Final Order dated 08.04.2022 wherein, Hon’ble Division Bench of this Court observed as below: “27. In view of the aforesaid decisions, it, therefore, emerges as settled legal position that though re-evaluation in the absence of there being any rule/scheme governing the examination is not permissible in law except in exceptional cases where the answers are found to be demonstrably wrong, the injustice caused to the candidates has to be undone. The course of action adopted in many cases referred to above, which was approved by the Courts, was that the complaints with regard to key answers or disputed questions have to be examined by a Committee of Experts and if the opinion of the Committee of Experts reflects that model answers are demonstrably wrong and some other option is correct, the answers given by the candidates is required to be reassessed with reference to the correct key answer. Where the questions itself were vague and wrong or where it is a case of multiple correct answers out of options given, the questions are required to be deleted and the candidates have to be evaluated on the basis of the answers given by them to the questions remaining after deletion. Where the questions itself were vague and wrong or where it is a case of multiple correct answers out of options given, the questions are required to be deleted and the candidates have to be evaluated on the basis of the answers given by them to the questions remaining after deletion. Scope of judicial review is limited, but in exceptional cases where the Court finds that model answer keys are demonstrably wrong on the face of it without involving inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation.” 8. In view of the above precedents (referred to supra) governing the controversy on all faces and on the facts and circumstances as available on record, we are of the firm view that the impugned order passed by the learned Single Bench is unassailable. Hence, we give our imprimatur to the impugned order dated 29.03.2022 passed by the learned Single Bench dismissing the writ petition of the appellant writ petitioner on the basis of the Judgment in the case of Phoosgir (supra). 9. As a consequence, the instant appeal is dismissed as being devoid of merit. Stay application is also rejected.