JUDGMENT : Sri S.K. Mishra, J. In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2-Uttarakhand Public Service Commission, Haridwar (hereinafter referred to as “Commission” for brevity) to include the Question No.10 of the Question Booklet Series-A of the Preliminary Examination for the selection process of post of District Probation Officer and Case worker, as correctly attempted by the petitioner as per the option exercised by him, and accordingly, award the marks to the petitioner. The petitioner has further prayed for a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2-Commission to award marks to the petitioner and include his name in the select list, and call him for mains examination for the aforesaid post. 2. It is not disputed that the petitioner, an aspirant to appear in the recruitment of the District Probation Officer in pursuance with the advertisement dated 07.12.2021, i.e. Annexure No.1 to this writ petition. He appeared in the preliminary examination, and he was declared unsuccessful. Now the case of the petitioner is that as far as Question No.10 is concerned, he has given a correct answer, but the Commission did not accept the same. The particular question has two correct answers. The Commission took the decision that two answers of the said question are correct, hence, the mark for that question is equally divided among rest of the 99 questions. 3. A similar matter bearing Writ Petition (S/B) No.290 of 2022 was list before us on 09.06.2022, wherein we have considered the matter and passed the following order:- “2. The learned counsel for the petitioner submits that as far as question no. 35 is concerned, his answer was correct but the Commission has taken a decision that two answers of the said question is correct, hence, the mark for that question is equally divided among rest of the 99 questions. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that instead of dividing the mark allotted for question no. 35, all the candidates should have been given a bonus mark as his answer was correct. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would argue that instead of dividing the mark allotted for question no. 35, all the candidates should have been given a bonus mark as his answer was correct. 3. The learned counsel for the Commission has produced the extract of the Resolution of the Commission which reads as follows:- ^^4 lwP; gS fd Ekk0 vk;ksx }kjk fnukad% 16 ekpZ 2022 dh cSBd ds dk;Zo`Rr ds fcUnq la[;k% 34 ¼2½ esa fuEuor fu.kZ; fy;k x;k gS& ^^vk;ksx }kjk iwoZ dh Hkkafr vkSicfU/kd mRrj dqath tkjh dh tk,A ;fn dksbZ iz'u vFkok mldk mRrj@fodYi =qfViw.kZ gksrk gS vFkok ,d ls vf/kd fodYi lgh gksrk gS vFkkZr~ iz'u ls jpukRed n`f"V ls =qfViw.kZ gks] rks ml iz'u dks iz'ui= ls ckgj dj fn;k tk, ,oa 'ks"k cps gq, iz'uksa dks vf/kdre vad ds cjkcj djus gsrq izR;sd iz'u ds vad dks ml vuqikr esa cढ+k fn;k tk, vFkkZr vf/kdre vad ;Fkkor jgsA vr% =qfViw.kZ iz'uksa gsrq cksul vad iznku u fd;k tk,A^^ mDr fu.kZ; ds vkyksd esa ek0 vk;ksx }kjk ,sls 01 iz'u] ftuds lUnHkZ esa fo"k;&fo'ks"kKksa }kjk iz'uksa dks gVk;s tkus dh vuq'kalk dh xbZ gS] mudks iz'ui= ls ckgj djrs gq, 'ks"k cps gq, Ikz'uksa dks vf/kdre vad ds cjkcj djus gsrq izR;sd iz'u ds vad dks ml vuqikr esa cढ+k fn;k x;k gS rkfd vf/kdre vad ¼150½ ;Fkkor jgsaA bl izdkj izR;sd iz'u ds fy, fu/kkZfjr vad 1-5 vad ds LFkku 1-5152 vad gks x;kA vr% vk;ksx }kjk mŸkjk[k.M lfEefyr jkT; flfoy@izoj v/khuLFk lsok ijh{kk&2021 ds vUrxZr f}rh; iz'u i=% lkekU; cqf)eŸkk ijh{kk (General Aptitude Test) dh vkSicfU/kd mRrjdqath ds lkis{k vH;fFkZ;ksa ls izkIr vkifRr;ksa dk fujkdj.k fu/kkZfjr izfØ;k ds vuqlkj fo"k;&fo'ks"kKksa }kjk djk;k x;k gSA bl izdkj vk;ksx }kjk tkjh vafre mRrj dqath rdZ] rF; ,oa fu;eksa ij vk/kkfjr gSA 4. It is apparent that recruitment examinations are specialized field of activity and are being conducted by the experts. For the said purpose, a Public Service Commission has been set up in the State of Uttarakhand under the aegis of the Constitution of India. Moreover, in a recently decided case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another vs. State of Rajasthan & others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not lightly interfered with the process of the examination. Moreover, in a recently decided case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another vs. State of Rajasthan & others, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the Courts exercising writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India should not lightly interfered with the process of the examination. The petitioner might have benefited if a bonus mark is given to every candidate instead of spreading the same over 99 questions but that is the decision of the expert body who has conducted the examination.” 4. Therefore, we are of the opinion that as per the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of “Vikesh Kumar Gupta & another vs. State of Rajasthan & other, (2021) 2 SCC 309 ”, the case of the petitioner cannot be considered, and the decision of the expert committee of the Commission cannot be lightly interfered. 5. Hence, we do not find any merit in this writ petition, and the same is, hereby, dismissed. 6. Urgent certified copy of this order be issued to the learned counsel for the parties, as per Rules.