JUDGMENT : 1. Petitioner is serving as Constable in Uttarakhand Police. He participated in a Selection held by Uttarakhand Services Selection Commission (hereinafter referred to as “Selecting Body”) for promotion to the post of Platoon Commander and Ranker Sub-Inspector. Petitioner was declared unsuccessful in the written examination. According to him, answer to two questions in the answer key, published by the Selecting Body, are incorrect and if those answers are corrected, then petitioner’s name would figure amongst the successful candidates. 2. Petitioner had earlier filed WPSS No. 829 of 2021, which was disposed of by coordinate Bench of this Court vide order dated 15.07.2021 with a direction to the Selecting Body to decide petitioner’s representation regarding answer to question Nos. 53 and 65 of Question Booklet Series ‘C’, within six weeks. 3. Pursuant to the said order, petitioner’s representation was considered and rejected by Secretary of the Selecting Body vide order dated 27.08.2021. Thus, feeling aggrieved, petitioner has approached this Court seeking the following relief:- (i) Issue writ rule or direction in the nature of certiorari mandamus to declare the impugned office memorandum 27.08.2021 as arbitrary, malafide, illegal and to quash the same keeping in view of the facts highlighted in the body of the petition or to mould the relief appropriately. (ii) Issue appropriate writ, rule or direction in the nature of mandamus to appoint an independent expert body to consider and verify the correctness of the answers of question no. 53 of booklet no. C by treating their answers as option no. (c) and question no. 65 of booklet no. C as technically wrong and to declare the petitioner eligible and recast the merit or in alternate the petitioner be declare as eligible to be place on the higher merit on the basis of answer given by him in question no. 53 and 65 by treating the same as correct answer. (iii) Issue a writ rule or direction appropriate in nature to answer damages and compensation to the Petitioners from the respondent no. 53 and 65 by treating the same as correct answer. (iii) Issue a writ rule or direction appropriate in nature to answer damages and compensation to the Petitioners from the respondent no. 1 and specifically from the erring persons due to their arbitrary, malafide and malicious act and the amount of such damages and compensation may be determined by this Hon’ble Court and also to sitting up independent enquiry by appointing an independent agency in respect of the affairs of Uttarakhand Subordinate Service Selection Commission and fixed and responsibilities of the erring officers and take appropriate action against them in accordance with law. 4. In the impugned rejection order, it is stated that provisional answer key was published soon after written examination and objections were invited, however, petitioner did not submit any objection regarding question Nos. 53 and 65 of Question Booklet Series ‘C’. Although some other candidates had submitted objections against these questions, however, Subject Experts found no substance in the objections and the answer to question Nos. 53 and 65, as given in the provisional answer key, were maintained. It is further stated that framing of question paper, moderation of questions and decision on objections against questions/answers is done by the Commission, as per advise of Subject Experts and since the Subject Experts had opined that there is no error in the answer key as regards aforesaid two questions, therefore, there is no substance in the objection raised by petitioner against the two questions. 5. Question Nos. 53 & 65 of Question Booklet Series ‘C’, against which petitioner had submitted representation, read as under:- 53. Who appoints Officers of the rank of Superintendent of Police & above? (A) Governor (B) Home Minister (C) President (D) Chief Minister 65. As per Uttarakhand Police Regulation, full form of P.R. Slip is: (A) Patent Registered Slip (B) Pre Registered Slip (C) Police Registered Slip (D) Program Record Slip 6. It is contended by the petitioner that he had given correct answer to both the questions, however, he suffered on account of mistake on the part of Selecting Body, as it had treated ‘incorrect’ answer as ‘correct’. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that correct answer to question No. 53 is option ‘(c)’, while option ‘(b)’ is the correct answer to question No. 65. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that correct answer to question No. 53 is option ‘(c)’, while option ‘(b)’ is the correct answer to question No. 65. Thus, according to learned counsel for the petitioner, due to mistake on the part of Selecting Body, petitioner not only had to loose the marks, which he was entitled to for giving correct answer, but he was also subjected to negative marking to the extent of 0.25 mark for each of the aforesaid two questions, consequently, score of petitioner’s marks was substantially reduced and he could not be selected. 8. Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel appearing for petitioner relied upon Clause (c) of Rule 2 of Indian Police Service (Recruitment) Rules, 1954 in support of his contention that option ‘C’ is the correct answer to question No. 53. Rule 2(c) of the aforesaid Rules is extracted below for ready reference:- “2(c) ‘member of the Indian Police’ means a person who, having been appointed to the police service under the Crown in India, known as the Indian Police, continues on and after the commencement of these rules, to serve under the Government of India, or a State.” 9. Perusal of Rule 2(c) of the said Rules does not support the contention made on behalf of the petitioner, as it is nowhere provides that “President” shall be the Appointing Authority in respect of Superintendent of Police and other Police Officers of superior rank. 10. Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel appearing for Selecting Body submits that Rule 2(c) of the aforesaid Rules deals with officers of Indian Police, who were appointed to the service before independence; but, continued to serve after enforcement of the said Rules. He further contends that now members of IPS are recruited through UPSC and appointed by the Central Government, however, their appointment as Superintendent of Police or other higher ranks is made by the State Government. He further contends that Members of State Police Service can also be appointed as Superintendent of Police in a State, therefore, option ‘(C)’ cannot be the correct answer to question No. 53. 11. Regarding question No. 65, Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said question is not properly framed, as Uttarakhand Police Regulation is not promulgated as yet, whereas the question refers to “Uttarakhand Police Regulation”, therefore, the question is flawed and is liable to be deleted. 12. 11. Regarding question No. 65, Mr. M.C. Pant, learned counsel for the petitioner contended that the said question is not properly framed, as Uttarakhand Police Regulation is not promulgated as yet, whereas the question refers to “Uttarakhand Police Regulation”, therefore, the question is flawed and is liable to be deleted. 12. Per contra, Mr. Pankaj Purohit, learned counsel for Selecting Body submits that soon after the written examination, provisional answer key was published and it was open to all candidates to file objection against framing of questions or the answers as given in the provisional answer key; however, petitioner did not raise any objection despite opportunity, therefore, he is estopped from raising the issue of defect in question No. 65, at this belated stage. He further submits that the Expert Committee had considered objections received against all the questions and on the recommendation of the Expert Committee, final answer key was published on 19.03.2021. He further submits that issue regarding correctness of questions asked in the written examination is not justiceable. 13. It is well settled that High Court, while exercising power of judicial review, cannot assume the role of a Subject Expert in academic matters and it cannot decide whether a question/answer treated as ‘correct’ by Subject Experts, is actually correct or not. In other words, this Court while exercising power under Article 226 of the Constitution cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by Subject Experts. 14. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur, reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 , has held as under:- “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.” 15. 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.” 15. Thus, this Court cannot take upon itself the task of Examiner or that of Selecting Body for examining the discrepancies and inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof. It is repeatedly held by Hon’ble Supreme Court that Constitutional Courts should be extremely reluctant in substituting its own views over the opinion of subject experts, in academic matters. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education v. Khusboo Shrivastava and others, reported in (2014) 14 SCC 523 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. This Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth has observed: “29. … 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 grassroots 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.” 16. In a recent judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2021) 2 SCC 309 , it has been reiterated that it is not open to the High Court to examine correctness of questions and answer key to come to a conclusion different from the opinion of the Expert Committee. It is further held that assessment of questions by the Court itself to arrive at correct answer, is not permissible. Relevant para of the aforesaid judgment is extracted below:- “17. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalisation of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularisation. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel.” 17. I find substance in the submission made by learned counsel for Selecting Body that the issue raised by petitioner is not justiceable. In exercise of power of judicial review, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the decision taken by the Subject Experts. Which of the option gives correct answer to a particular question has to be decided by Subject Expert. Correctness of a question also cannot be gone into by this Court under Article 226 of Constitution. In view of settled legal position, this Court refrains from exercising its power of judicial review. Thus, the relief, as claimed in the writ petition, cannot be granted. 18. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed. Interim order dated 07.10.2021 stands vacated.