JUDGMENT : 1. Being dissatisfied with the answer key published by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short-‘the RPSC')), this batch of writ petitions has been filed by the candidates who have failed to secure position in the list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination of RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination-2021. 2. Although, the matters came up on an application filed in S.B. 3. Civil Writ Petition No.13968/2021, on the joint request of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the same were heard finally at this stage on their merit and are being decided vide this common order. 4. To appreciate the factual matrix, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14655/2021, Khinvraj Singh & Ors. v. . RPSC is taken as the lead case. The petitioners applied for appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 20.7.2021 in the State Services as well as Subordinate Services. The scheme of examination provides for preliminary (screening) examination, mains examination and interview. The screening test consists of one paper of General Knowledge and General Science comprised of 150 multiple choice questions of total 200 marks with a provision for deduction of one third mark for each wrong answer. The preliminary examination was conducted on 27.10.2021 and the RPSC uploaded model answer key on 3.11.2021 inviting objections thereto. The petitioners filed objections to some of the answers whereafter, the respondent has issued final answer key on 22.11.2021 which is subject matter of challenge qua some of the answers. A prayer has been made to direct the respondent to revise the result and permit the petitioners to participate in the mains examination on the strength of their merit position. 5. The respondent in its reply submitted that since the final answer key is based on expert opinion, the same does not warrant any interference. 6. Learned counsels for the petitioners assailing the validity of the final answer key qua the answers to questions no.1, 7, 31, 41, 42, 43, 45, 62, 84, 98, 105 and 122, contended that since answers to these questions are demonstrably and palpably wrong, this Court should intervene in the matter and direct the RPSC to issue revised answer key with correct answers to these questions. 7. Per contra, Mr. 7. Per contra, Mr. Amit Lubhaya, learned counsel for the RPSC reiterating the averments of the reply, contended that since the final answer key is based on expert opinion, no interference is warranted by this Court under its very limited jurisdiction. 8. Before entering into the factual vortex, this Court examines the contour of the judicial review of the expert opinion in the academic matters. 9. Their Lordships have held in the case of UPPSC & Ors. v. . Rahul Singh & Ors.- (2018) 7 SCC 254 , as under: "8. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us. 9. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others v. . Samir Gupta and Others- (1983) 4 SCC 309 , this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:- "16. ...........We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct........." The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Government should devise a system for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. 10. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. . State of Uttar Pradesh and Others- (2018) 2 SCC 357 , this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms:- "30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. In Ran Vijay Singh and Others v. . State of Uttar Pradesh and Others- (2018) 2 SCC 357 , this Court after referring to a catena of judicial pronouncements summarized the legal position in the following terms:- "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. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate." 11. We may also refer to the following observations in Paras 31 and 32 which show why the Constitutional Courts must exercise restraint in such matters:- "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. 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. 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. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. In the present case we find that all the 3 questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain text books. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts." In the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Anr. v. . the State of Rajasthan and Ors., Civil Appeal No.3649-3650/2020, vide judgment dated 7.12.2020, their Lordships held as under: "11. 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 (Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr.- (2010) 6 SCC 759 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 (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh & Ors.)- (2010) 8 SCC 372 . Examining the scope of judicial review with regards to re- evaluation of answer sheets, this Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.- (2018) 2 SCC 357 held that court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize 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: "31. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx 32. xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx (Already quoted in Rahul Singh & Ors. (supra) 12. In view of the above law laid down by this Court, it was not open to the Division Bench to have examined the correctness of the questions and the answer key to come to a conclusion different from that of the Expert Committee in its judgment dated 12.03.2019. Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors.- (2018) 8 SCC 81 . Reliance was placed by the Appellants on Richal & Ors. v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors.- (2018) 8 SCC 81 . In the said judgment, this Court interfered with the selection process only after obtaining the opinion of an expert committee but did not enter into the correctness of the questions and answers by itself. Therefore, the said judgment is not relevant for adjudication of the dispute in this case. 13. 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 finalization 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 regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel." A coordinate bench of this Court in Jagdish Kumar Choudhary & Ors. v. . RPSC & Ors.-MANU/RH/0332/2020 vide its judgment dated 9.3.2020, held as under: "11. True it is that a candidate cannot use the writ jurisdiction as an appeal in disguise over the experts' opinion. But taking cue from the established principles of judicial review, this Court feels that of late it has become imperative for the Courts to be satisfied at least about the decision making process of the experts, if not the outcome. The Court may or may not pronounce upon the ultimate decision of the experts, but it can certainly examine as to whether the experts have relied upon the relevant material or not; Court can also see as to whether on the basis of the material so relied by the experts, no other view was possible. The Court needs to be satisfied that the experts have given brief reasons for taking a particular view. In case, the Court finds that the material relied and reasoning given by the experts is not acceptable to a man of reasonable prudence, it will not keep its hands tied. 12. The Court needs to be satisfied that the experts have given brief reasons for taking a particular view. In case, the Court finds that the material relied and reasoning given by the experts is not acceptable to a man of reasonable prudence, it will not keep its hands tied. 12. For the purpose of enabling the Court to have a proper judicial review, it is expected from the expert committee to bear in mind the following:- (i) In case the answer to a question is direct and is not dependent upon reasoning or analysis, the experts may avoid giving reasons. In such cases, a reference to relevant material is imperative. (ii) In case where the answer to a particular question is not direct - it is to be deduced or the same is subservient to reasoning, the experts should give brief reasons for holding such opinion, while enclosing the authentic book/relevant material, which they have relied upon. (iii) The experts are supposed to rely upon authentic material and direct evidence so far as practicable instead of referring to the text books prescribed for the schools/colleges. (iv) If a question relates to work/report of some Scientist, Economist, survey etc. they should invariably refer to the original work, rather than referring to the text books or some other author's interpretation or reproduction of such work." From the conspectus of the aforesaid judgments, the scope of judicial review in such matters can very broadly be summarised as under: (1) The answer key should be assumed to be correct unless it is shown to be demonstrably and palpably wrong without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. (2) The expert opinion must reflect reasons behind it, if the answer is based on reasoning. (3) The experts are supposed to rely upon authentic/standard and impeccable material. Now, the Court ventures into the arena of the respective claim of the parties with regard to correctness of the answer key published by the RPSC qua the disputed answers. Question no.1: 1. Which of the following statement regarding Ruma Devi is not true? (1) She is known in the field of Handicrafts. (2) She was brought-up in the village Jasrapur (Khetari). (3) She was felicitated with `Nari Shakti Award' by the President of India in 2018. (4) She played a major role in providing employment to Thousands of Woman. Question no.1: 1. Which of the following statement regarding Ruma Devi is not true? (1) She is known in the field of Handicrafts. (2) She was brought-up in the village Jasrapur (Khetari). (3) She was felicitated with `Nari Shakti Award' by the President of India in 2018. (4) She played a major role in providing employment to Thousands of Woman. RPSC has chosen the option no.2 as the correct answer whereas, as per the petitioners, option no.2 as also option no.3 represents the correct answer. Drawing attention of this Court towards the excerpt downloaded from the official YouTube channel website of the President of India, learned counsels submitted that Ruma Devi was presented Nari Shakti Puraskar-2018 on the International Women's Day, i.e., on 8.3.2019. They submit that though the award was for the year 2018; but, it was awarded in the year 2019. They, therefore, prayed that the question needs to be deleted. Mr. Amit Lubhaya submits that the expert opinion is based on press release dated 7.9.2018 issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development on its official website as also an information contained in the book in the name of "Rajasthan Ka Itihas, Sanskriti, Parampara and Virasat" edited by Dr. Hukam Chand Jain and Dr. Narayan Lal Mali published by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy. With regard to information available on the official YouTube channel website of the President of India, he submits that it reflects presentation of award on 8.3.2019 and not in 2019, a vital difference which, as per the counsel, goes to the root of the matter. The official YouTube channel of the President of India reflects that Nari Shakti Puraskar was presented to Ruma Devi on 8.3.2019, i.e., on International Women's Day. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the Commission that the official website of the President of India shows presentation of the award on 8.3.2019 and not in 2019, deserves to be rejected being absurd. No reason has been assigned by the expert committee to disagree with the objections raised by the candidates based on official YouTube website of the President of India. No reason has been assigned by the expert committee to disagree with the objections raised by the candidates based on official YouTube website of the President of India. However, since the experts have also relied upon a press release issued by the Ministry of Women and Child Development on its official website as also an information available in the book published by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy, this Court, instead of directing deletion of the question, deems it just and proper to remit the matter back to the expert committee to consider it afresh vide reasoned opinion. Question no.7: The Rajamundri Social Reform Association to encourage widow re-marriage was founded in 1871 by- (1) Veeresalingam (2) K. Ramakrishan Pillai (3) K.T. Telang (4) Gopalachariar As per RPSC, option no.1 is the correct answer whereas, as per the petitioners, the question itself is wrong. Learned counsels for the petitioners submit that since the Rajamundry Social Reform Association to encourage the widow re- marriage was founded in the year 1878 and not in the year 1871, the question itself was wrongly formulated which created confusion in the mind of the candidates. Hence, the question requires to be deleted. Shri Amit submitted that mere error in the year of foundation of the Association does not go to the root of the matter and does not change tenor of the question whereby, name of its founder was asked. He submitted that even otherwise also, only 9 objections were raised against it reflecting that it did not create any confusion in the mind of the candidates. True that Rajamundry Social Reform Association to encourage widow re-marriage was founded in the year 1878; but, this Court finds force in the submission of the learned counsel for the Commission that mere error in the year of foundation of Association would not change colour of the question or its fundamental characteristic whereby, name of its founder was asked which, indisputably was option no.1. Therefore, the Court does not find any error in the expert opinion. Question no.31: Which one of the following is not basic element of the citizen charter? (1) Description of services being provided by department or the agency. (2) Promotion of various methods to get benefit from the service available. (3) To expect any public record. (4) Provision for the inspection of the agency's work. Question no.31: Which one of the following is not basic element of the citizen charter? (1) Description of services being provided by department or the agency. (2) Promotion of various methods to get benefit from the service available. (3) To expect any public record. (4) Provision for the inspection of the agency's work. As per RPSC, the correct answer is option no.4 whereas, as per petitioners', the option no.3 represents the correct answer. Learned counsels relying upon a book published by the Rajasthan Hindi Granth Academy approved by the Education Ministry, Central Government in the name of Rajasthan: Prashasnik Avem Rajnitik Vyavastha (Administrative and Political System) by Dr. Janak Singh Meena wherein, option no.3, i.e., "To expect any public record", has not been shown to be part of basic element of the citizen charter, submitted that expert opinion is erroneous. Per contra, Shri Amit submitted that the expert opinion is based on "citizen charter", a handbook by the Government of India wherein, "Details of Business Transacted by the Organisation", is stated to be a component of citizen charter which is co-related to option no.3. He submitted that in support of their opinion, the experts have also relied upon an excerpt from the "Vividh Adhikar and Nagarik Adhikar Patra" wherein, it has been stated that ^^fdlh yksd vfHkys[k dh vis{+kk djuk** (To expect any public record) is not part of the basic element which is co-related to option no.4, i.e., provision for the inspection of agency's work. He, therefore, submitted that option chosen by the RPSC is the correct answer. As per the book in the name of Rajasthan : Prashasnik Avem Rajnitik Vyavastha (Administrative and Political System) published by the Rajasthan Granth Academy, all other options except option no.3 are part of the basic element of the citizen charter. The expert opinion neither sounds to be logical nor, based on authentic material. By no yardstick, the right of "Details of Business Transacted by the Organisation" as enumerated as one of the basic component of citizen charter in the hand book can be related with option no.3, i.e., To expect any public record. The expert opinion neither sounds to be logical nor, based on authentic material. By no yardstick, the right of "Details of Business Transacted by the Organisation" as enumerated as one of the basic component of citizen charter in the hand book can be related with option no.3, i.e., To expect any public record. Rather, as per excerpt relied upon by experts, a part of "Vividh Adhikar and Nagarik Adhikar Patra", the option ^^fdlh yksd vfHkys[k dh vis{+kk djuk** (To expect any public record) has been treated to be part of Right to Information Act and not as the basic element as Mr. Amit has admitted during the course of arguments that the note endorsed against clause 4 of the excerpt is in the handwriting of the expert. The note reads as under: ^^¼4½ fdlh yksd vfHkys[k dh vis{+kk djuk ¼lquokbZ vf/kdkj vf/kfu;e ds rgr] ewy rRo esa 'kkfey ugha½** Thus, the expert opinion suffers from an error apparent on its face. In view thereof, this Court thinks it just and proper to remit the matter back to the expert committee to consider it afresh in the light of aforesaid observations and the material available on record/fresh material. Question no.41: Which feature of Chief Minister Chiranjeevi Health Insurance Scheme is correct? 1. Under the scheme for different ailments 1576 types of packages and procedures will be available. 2. The disease for which a patient is admitted to a hospital, 5 days prior to that and 10 days after the discharge from the hospital all expenditure on investigation, medicines and consultation fee in the hospital will be included in the package. 3. It was started on May 1, 2021. 4. Under this scheme an insurance cover of Rs.4.50 lakhs is payable per year per family for serious ailments. As per RPSC, option no.2 is the correct answer whereas, as per petitioners, it has two options, i.e. (1) and (2) as the correct answer. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that by the time the screening examination was conducted, the number of packages and procedures under the Scheme was increased to 1579 from 1576 and hence, their option is correct. They rely upon the information available on the official website of the State of Rajasthan, i.e., https://chiranjeevi.rajasthan.gov.in as also "Rajasthan Sujas", a monthly publication by the Government of Rajasthan, in support of their submissions. They rely upon the information available on the official website of the State of Rajasthan, i.e., https://chiranjeevi.rajasthan.gov.in as also "Rajasthan Sujas", a monthly publication by the Government of Rajasthan, in support of their submissions. Shri Amit submits that the experts have opined that since the number of packages/procedures keep on updating and on Jan Kalyan and various Government Portals, number of such packages/procedures was still reflected as 1576, their answer is correct. He also referred to information available on the Government of India website in this regard. The information available on the official website of the State of Rajasthan as also in the "Rajasthan Sujas", a monthly publication by the Government of Rajasthan, establishes that number of packages and procedures under the C.M.C.H.I. Scheme was increased to 1579 from 1576 by the time the screening examination was conducted. The respondent has not disputed the genuineness of the number of packages/procedures available on the Government of Rajasthan website as also in its publication "Rajasthan Sujas". Even the experts have observed that number of packages/procedures keeps on updating. While supporting their answer to the question no.30 wherein, the maximum number of persons that could be nominated by the State Government in a Municipal Council as per provisions of Rajasthan Municipal Act, 2009, was asked, the expert committee has relied upon the Rajasthan Municipality (Amendment) Act, 2021 which was published in the gazette dated 8.4.2021 to support their answer. Although, the petitioners did not press their objections to the answer to the question no.30 in view of the amendment; but, it reflects the double standards adopted by the experts to support their opinion. In any case, once it is established that number of packages/procedures was increased to 1579 prior to conducting the preliminary examination, the objections raised by the petitioners merit acceptance. Since, the question has two options, i.e., (1) and (2) as correct answer, it needs to be deleted. Question no.42: Consider the following statements regarding State Election Commission, Rajasthan- (i) The State Election Commission, Rajasthan was constituted in December, 1994. (ii) It has a Secretary who is also the Chief Electoral of ficer for the State. Code: (1) Only (i) is correct (2) Only (ii) is correct (3) Both (i) and (ii) are correct (4) Neither (i) nor (ii) is correct As per RPSC, option no.2 is the correct answer whereas, as per petitioners, option no.4 is the correct answer. (ii) It has a Secretary who is also the Chief Electoral of ficer for the State. Code: (1) Only (i) is correct (2) Only (ii) is correct (3) Both (i) and (ii) are correct (4) Neither (i) nor (ii) is correct As per RPSC, option no.2 is the correct answer whereas, as per petitioners, option no.4 is the correct answer. Relying upon an information obtained from the official website of the State Government viz. https://sec.rajasthan.gov.in/officecontacts.aspx, learned counsels submitted that office of the State Election Commission, Rajasthan and office of the Chief Electoral of ficer, Rajasthan are different and distinct offices and in the office of State Election Commission, Rajasthan, no post with designation of Chief Electoral of ficer exists. Shri Amit, relying upon the official website of the State Election Commission, Rajasthan, wherein it has been stated that it has a Secretary who is also the Chief Electoral of ficer for the State as also the order dated 8.12.2020 issued by the Commissioner, State Election Commission, Rajasthan whereby, the Secretary of the Commission has been designated as Chief Electoral officer, submitted that the expert committee has rightly found the option no.2 to be the correct answer. This court does not find any force in the submission of the learned counsels for the petitioners as it is not substantiated from the information relied upon by them. The information relied upon by the RPSC establishes beyond an iota of doubt that Secretary of the State Election Commission, Rajasthan, also happens to be its Chief Electoral officer. Therefore, the objections are rejected. Question no.43: Identify the incorrect feature of the recently declared 'UDAN' scheme of the Government of Rajasthan- (1) Under this scheme all women in the State will get free sanitary napkins from 19th November, 2021. (2) The scheme will come into operation from 19 th November, 2021. (3) For effective implementation of the scheme 2 Brand Ambassadors at state level and 1 at district level will be engaged. (4) The scheme aims to make women aware about better health and individual physical hygiene. RPSC has deleted this question. As per petitioners, option no.1 is the correct answer. Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that the RPSC erred in deleting the question finding none of the options to be incorrect feature of the UDAN scheme whereas, option no.1 represented the correct answer. RPSC has deleted this question. As per petitioners, option no.1 is the correct answer. Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that the RPSC erred in deleting the question finding none of the options to be incorrect feature of the UDAN scheme whereas, option no.1 represented the correct answer. Relying upon the Government of Rajasthan publication of the scheme through Women Empowerment Directorate, Women and Child Development Department, Jaipur which provides that the UDAN scheme is for the age group of 10-45 years, they contended that it does not apply to all the women in the State. Per contra, learned counsel for RPSC submitted that earlier they have found option no.1 to be correct answer, i.e., the incorrect feature of the UDAN scheme; however, from the announcement from the Chief Minister office, it transpired that scheme was implemented for all the women in the State and hence, it also being a correct feature of the UDAN scheme, they decided to delete the question. From the aforesaid, it is apparent that the Government of Rajasthan has issued conflicting information as to applicability of the Udan scheme. As per publication of the scheme by the Women Empowerment Directorate, Women and Child Development Department, Jaipur, it applies to the girls and women in the age group of 10-45 years whereas, as per the announcement from the Chief Minister office, it is applicable for all the women in the State. Therefore, this Court upholds the expert opinion albeit for different reason. Question no.45 Gurumukh Nihal Singh was appointed as the first Governor of Rajasthan on - (1) 2nd November, 1956 (2) 25th October, 1956 (3) 1st November, 1956 (4) 26th October, 1956. As per RPSC, option no.2 is the correct answer whereas, petitioners' stress is on the option no.3. Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that as per Article 1 of the Constitution of India, `The India', i.e. Bharat, shall be a Union of States. They submitted that Article 3 provides that Parliament may by law form a new State in the manner enumerated therein. Learned counsels submitted that the State of Rajasthan came into picture w.e.f. 1.11.1956, the "appointed day" as per Section 2 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. It was contended that since the State of Rajasthan itself was formed w.e.f. 1.11.1956, there could not have been its Governor prior to it. Learned counsels submitted that the State of Rajasthan came into picture w.e.f. 1.11.1956, the "appointed day" as per Section 2 of the States Reorganization Act, 1956. It was contended that since the State of Rajasthan itself was formed w.e.f. 1.11.1956, there could not have been its Governor prior to it. They submit that even otherwise also, as Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh was holding the position of the Chief Minister of the State of Delhi till 31.10.1956, he could not have been appointed as first Governor of Rajasthan on 25.10.1956. Shri Amit submitted that the objections pertain to the date of oath by Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh as Governor of Rajasthan whereas, in the question, his date of appointment was asked which, as per the official website of the Raj Bhawan, Rajasthan, is 25.10.1956. This Court is in agreement with the expert opinion. The official website of the Raj Bhawan, Rajasthan reflects date of appointment of Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh as the first Governor of Rajasthan as 25.10.1956. True that he took oath of the office on 1.11.1956; but, in the question the date of his appointment was asked and not the date on which he assumed office. Undoubtedly, the same could have on different date. It has not been case of the petitioners that Shri Gurumukh Nihal Singh was also appointed on the day he assumed office. Therefore, the objections are rejected. Question no.62: The second highest percentage of Scheduled tribe population in Rajasthan is found in (2011)- (1) Banswara District (2) Pratapgarh District (3) Dungarpur District (4) Dausa District As per RPSC, option no.3 is the correct answer whereas, petitioners' rely on option no.1. Learned counsels for petitioners, drawing attention of this Court towards chart 1.14 of the Statistical Year Book, Rajasthan-2020 published by the Directorate of Economic and Statistics, Statistics Department, submitted that the highest percentage of total State Scheduled Tribe population by residence in Udaipur is 16.5%, in Banswara 14.9% and at third place, in Dungarpur 10.6%. Referring to Table 17.16 of the Geography of Rajasthan by Shri H.M. Saxena, learned counsels submitted that therein the `Banswara', has been shown to have highest Scheduled Tribe population percentage in its total population, i.e., District wise, Dungarpur appears at no.2 with Pratapgarh at no.3 and Udaipur at no.4. Referring to Table 17.16 of the Geography of Rajasthan by Shri H.M. Saxena, learned counsels submitted that therein the `Banswara', has been shown to have highest Scheduled Tribe population percentage in its total population, i.e., District wise, Dungarpur appears at no.2 with Pratapgarh at no.3 and Udaipur at no.4. They submitted that since the question related to the second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population in Rajasthan, the option chosen by the RPSC, i.e., Dungarpur is incorrect as it has second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population District wise and not State wise. Shri Amit submitted that relying on the Scheduled Tribe population and decadal change as also percentage of Scheduled Tribes to total population : 2011-2012 by residence as per Census-2011, the expert committee has found that Dungarpur has second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population in Rajasthan. The Court finds merit in the objections raised by the petitioners as the expert committee has relied upon the data which reflects percentage of the Scheduled Tribes in a district out of its total population, i.e., District wise whereas, in the question, the second highest percentage of Scheduled Tribe population in Rajasthan was asked which, as per the Census-2011, is option no.1, i.e. Banswara District. The learned counsel for the Commission failed to meet the reasoning assigned by the learned counsel for the petitioners during the course of arguments. The objections raised by the petitioners are duly supported by the data of Census-2011 which requires no inferential process of reasoning. In view thereof, while rejecting expert opinion, the Court accepts the objections. Option no.1 is held to be the correct answer. Question no.84: Which of the following district is not a part of `Desert Triangle' in Rajasthan? (1) Jodhpur (2) Bikaner (3) Barmer (4) Jaisalmer As per RPSC, option no.3 is correct, whereas, as per petitioners, all options are incorrect. Learned counsels for petitioners, relying upon a publication in the name of "20 Year Perceptive Plan for Sustainable Tourism in India" by the Department of Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture, Government of India, canvassed that the desert circuit in the State of Rajasthan comprises of four Districts, i.e., Jodhpur, Jaisalmer, Bikaner and Barmer and hence, the answer by the RPSC ousting the District Barmer is incorrect. Per contra, learned counsel for RPSC submitted that as per information available on the official website of Department of Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture, Government of India, the Desert circuit of Rajasthan comprises of three Districts only, i.e., Jodhpur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer. As per the information available on the official website of the Department of Tourism, Ministry of Tourism, Art and Culture, Government of India, the desert circuit of Rajasthan comprises of three Districts only, i.e., Jodhpur, Bikaner and Jaisalmer. In the tourist map of the Rajasthan appended, the Desert Triangle has been shown to be consisting of these three Districts only. The publication relied upon by the petitioners reveals Barmer to be a prospective part of Desert circuit in the State of Rajasthan. Even otherwise also, since, in the question, a District not part of "Desert Triangle" was asked, there could not have been fourth component in the triangle. Therefore, the Court does not find merit in the objections. Question no.98: How much has the global average temperature risen in the last century? (1) 3.0 degree F (2) 1.8 degree F (3) 3.4 degree F (4) 2.4 degree F As per RPSC, option no.2 is correct one whereas, as per petitioners, the question itself is required to be deleted as none of the options is correct. Learned counsels for petitioners, in support of their submission, relied upon `Biology' book for Class-XII published by the National Council of Educational Research and Training which states that in last century, there has been an increase in global average temperature to 0.6 degree centigrade. They contended that the expert committee has relied upon unauthenticated material including NOAA Climate.gov, a private NGO website. Shri Amit submitted that as per Columbia University Press, Newyork Publication in the name of `Climate Change', in the last century, the global average temperature has risen by about 1 degree centigrade (1.8 degree Fahrenheit). He also relied upon an article in the name of "Climate Change: Global Temperature" available on the NOAA Climate.gov website which, as per the learned counsel, is a website of international repute. He submitted that since the question pertains to global average rise in the temperature, the expert committee has rightly relied upon an international publication. He also relied upon an article in the name of "Climate Change: Global Temperature" available on the NOAA Climate.gov website which, as per the learned counsel, is a website of international repute. He submitted that since the question pertains to global average rise in the temperature, the expert committee has rightly relied upon an international publication. As per the NCERT Biology book for Class-XII, the increase in global average temperature in the last century has been 0.6 degree centigrade which, in Fahrenheit comes to 1.08 degree. The material relied upon by the expert committee does not categorically state about average increase in global temperature in the last century to the tune of 1.8 degree Fahrenheit, the option chosen by it as the correct answer. Learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon following observations from the article "Climate Change" by the Columbia University Press :- "Global warming began in earnest at the beginning of the twentieth century. Since, 1880, global means surface air temperature increased by about 1 degree C (1.8 degree F), a rate of change for higher than natural temperature changes in the Pleistocene or Holocene before the advent of the industrial age." This Court is not satisfied that it anywhere says about rise in global average temperature in the last century by about 1.8 degree Fahrenheit; rather, it speaks of such increase in temperature since 1880. Further, it does not prescribe the exact period which was taken into consideration for making this observation. As per Mr. Amit, the expert committee has also placed reliance upon following excerpt from the "Climate Change" in their support: "Averaged across land and ocean, the 2020 surface temperature was 1.76 degree F (0.98 degree Celsius) warmer than the twentieth-century average of 57.0 degree F (13.9. degree C) and 2.14 degree F (1.19 degree C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900)." Again, this observation available on a NGO website in the name of Climate.gov does not support the expert opinion. degree C) and 2.14 degree F (1.19 degree C) warmer than the pre-industrial period (1880-1900)." Again, this observation available on a NGO website in the name of Climate.gov does not support the expert opinion. The learned counsel for the respondent has relied upon an observation in the same Article, i.e., "Climate Change" available on page 278 of its reply (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14175/2021, which reads as under: "The roughly 2-degree Fahrenheit (1 degree centigrade) increase in global average surface temperature that has occurred since the pre-industrial era (1880-1900) might seem small, but it means a significant increase in accumulated heat." This Court is at loss to understand as to how it supports/ leads to a conclusion that option no.2, i.e., 1.8 degree Fahrenheit is the correct answer to the question. In the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is not satisfied that the expert opinion is based on any authenticated/standard material. The learned counsel for the respondent even failed to satisfy this Court that material relied upon by the expert committee supports its opinion as to option no.2 being correct. No reason has been assigned by the expert committee to disagree with the NCERT book of Biology subject of Class-XII. In view thereof, the matter requires reconsideration. Question no.105: Solar observatory in Rajasthan is situated at- (1) Udaipur (2) Jaipur (3) Ajmer (4) Jodhpur The RPSC has deleted the question whereas, petitioners rely on option no.1 as correct answer. Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that relying on some private and unauthenticated website, the respondent has deleted the question holding the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur to be one of the correct options, which is not substantiated otherwise. They submitted that in the recruitment examination of RAS/RTS-2018, the respondent itself has found "Udaipur" as the only place in the State of Rajasthan where the Solar Observatory is situated and therefore, it does not lie in their mouth to change their stand and say that it is established both at Udaipur as also at Jaipur. They contended that a co-ordinate bench of this Court has, vide judgment dated 10.12.2018 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25338/2018; Jitendra Kumar Bakotia & Ors. v. . State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other connected matters, upheld the expert opinion and the order dated 10.12.2018 has attained finality. They submitted that in view thereof, the petitioners were under legitimate expectation that the respondent-RPSC would adhere to its earlier stand. v. . State of Rajasthan and Ors. and other connected matters, upheld the expert opinion and the order dated 10.12.2018 has attained finality. They submitted that in view thereof, the petitioners were under legitimate expectation that the respondent-RPSC would adhere to its earlier stand. They submitted that in a book with title "Rajasthan Ka Itihas Avem Sanskriti" published by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer for Class-X, the Jantar Mantar has been shown to be an Astronomical Observatory only and not as Solar Observatory. They also relied upon the information available on the website of United Nations Education Scientific and Cultural Organisation (UNESCO) as also the information available on the official website of Rajasthan Tourism Department, in support of their submissions. Learned counsel for RPSC submitted that the expert committee has opined its deletion in view of the fact that two options, i.e., (1) Udaipur and (2) Jaipur represent the correct answer. He submits that the expert committee has relied upon the authentic material including a publication-"Ancient Observatories- Timeless Knowledge" by the Stanford Seller Centre. He submitted that this Court has, vide its judgment dated 10.12.2018, while considering the same question asked in RAS/RTS Examination- 2018, did not agree with option, i.e. Udaipur chosen by the RPSC and referred the matter back for reconsideration by the expert committee. When asked pointedly, none of the parties could answer as to what a solar observatory is exactly. They all admitted that the word "solar observatory" has not been defined in any of the English Dictionary of repute. Learned counsel for the Commission was also at loss to convey the meaning of `solar observatory', i.e., whether it is related to study of Sun or study of time based on Sun. Learned counsel for the petitioners, relying upon its definition available on the Wikipedia, submitted that a solar observatory is an observatory that specializes in monitoring the Sun. However, the Wikipedia not being an authorised source, this Court is not inclined to go by this definition. In the "Rajasthan Ka Itihas and Sanskriti", a Class X book published by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur has been classified as one of the five Astronomical Observatories established by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh-II. However, the Wikipedia not being an authorised source, this Court is not inclined to go by this definition. In the "Rajasthan Ka Itihas and Sanskriti", a Class X book published by the Rajasthan Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer, the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur has been classified as one of the five Astronomical Observatories established by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh-II. Similarly, the official website of the UNESCO as also the official website of the Rajasthan Tourism Department have reckoned the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur as an astronomical observatory whereas, as per the official government website, i.e., museumrajasthan.gov.in, the Jantar Mantar, Jaipur is one of the five solar observatories founded by Maharaja Sawai Jai Singh. Thus, there is conflicting opinion available in the standard book/official websites of different government bodies/organisations. There is another important aspect of the matter. In the last RAS/RTS Examination-2018, the same question was asked wherein, the RPSC has chosen 'Udaipur' as the only place where the solar observatory in Rajasthan is situated. The answer key was assailed by way of S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.25338/2018 wherein, a coordinate bench of this Court vide its judgment dated 10.12.2018 remanded the question back to the expert committee for its reconsideration but, none of the parties could specify as to what happened thereafter. Although, the petitioners have contended that the experts maintained their earlier opinion, i.e., Udaipur but, there is no material on record to substantiate the same. In view thereof, this Court deems it just and proper to direct the expert committee to take a call again on this question. Question no.122: Study the following then answer the question- Statement: The petrol prices have gone up during the past few weeks. Courses of action: I. The government should set up an expert committee to study the trend of prices. II The government should immediately reduce taxes on petrol. III The government should advise the general public to refrain from purchasing petrol for few weeks. Decide which of the suggested course of action follows: (1) Only I (2) Only II (3) Only III (4) None of these According to RPSC, option no.2 is correct, whereas as per petitioners', option no.1 is the correct answer. Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that question itself being based on opinion, should not have been part of multiple choice questions as it may vary individually. Learned counsels for petitioners submitted that question itself being based on opinion, should not have been part of multiple choice questions as it may vary individually. They submitted that the expert opinion is not based on any concrete material and even otherwise also, the option no.1 appears to be most logical and plausible answer to the question. Shri Amit, learned counsel for RPSC submitted that the expert committee has opined the option no.2 to be correct option as it would give relief to the people. He further submitted that the question was part of syllabus under the Logical Reasoning (Statement and Course of Action). Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question being opinion based, should not have been part of multiple choice questions, does not merit acceptance as, the MCQs pertaining to logical reasoning (statement and course of action), has been part of syllabus of preliminary examination. Being an opinion based question, this Court does not find any strong reason to disagree with the expert opinion. The petitioners having failed to demonstrate that the expert opinion is palpably wrong or is so highly unreasonable that no prudent man could agree with it, the expert opinion is sustained. The conclusion of the Court question-wise is summarised as under: 1. Question no.1-The matter is remanded back to the expert committee to re-look into the matter vide reasoned opinion. 2. Question no.7- The objections are rejected. 3. Question no.31 - The matter is remitted back to the expert committee to consider it afresh vide reasoned opinion. 4. Question no.41- Since, the question has two options as correct answer, it is deleted. 5. Question no.42- The objections are rejected. 6. Question no.43 - The expert opinion is upheld. 7. Question no.45 - The objections are rejected. 8. Question no.62- The objections are sustained. Option no.1 is held to be correct answer. 9. Question no.84 - The objections are rejected. 10. Question no.98 - The matter is remanded back to the expert committee to re-look into the matter vide reasoned opinion. 11. Question no.105 - The matter is remanded back to the expert committee to re-look into the matter vide reasoned opinion. 12. Question no.122- The expert opinion is upheld. 10. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are partly allowed in the above mentioned terms. 11. Question no.105 - The matter is remanded back to the expert committee to re-look into the matter vide reasoned opinion. 12. Question no.122- The expert opinion is upheld. 10. The upshot of the aforesaid discussion is that the writ petitions are partly allowed in the above mentioned terms. The final answer key dated 22.11.2021 is quashed to the extent as stated hereinabove. Resultantly, the result dated 19.11.2021 stands quashed. The RPSC is directed to revise the result of the preliminary examination and to prepare a fresh list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination accordingly.