JUDGMENT Arun Bhansali, J. - This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking a direction to the respondents to delete the erroneous question no. 26 and 110 of the master booklet issued by the respondents and to grant weightage to the petitioner and issue final selection list in accordance with law, to form a committee to look into the questions no. 26 and 110 and give effect to the same in the document verification list for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil) and grant appointment to the petitioner pursuant to the advertisement. 2. The advertisement dated 3/3/2020 was issued by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board for appointment to the post of Junior Engineer for various departments. Written examination, pursuant to the advertisement, wherein, petitioner applied for the post of Junior Engineer (Civil-Degree Holder) in the category of OBC (NCL), was held on 12/9/2021. The examination was based on Multiple Choice Questions and after publishing the modal answer key on 22/9/2021 objections were invited. The petitioner filed his objections qua two questions, question no. 26 and question no. 110. However, in the final answer key published by the respondents, the objections raised by the petitioner were not accepted and petitioner having obtained 99.0363 marks, his name appeared in the list of candidates eligible for document verification. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the respondents have committed mistake in apparently rejecting the objections of the petitioner. Submissions were made that the two questions, question no. 26 and question no. 110, were both incorrect and, therefore, should have been ordered to be deleted by the respondents. 4. It was submitted that while in question no. 26 instead of 'Maharaj Pramukh', the question should have been 'Raj Pramukh', based on which mistake i.e. the question itself was incorrect, the same was required to be deleted. Qua question no. 110, submissions were made that the question put pertained to Dry Density, whereas, options given were in relation to Dry Unit Weight and as such the said question also was required to be deleted. 5. It was submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner were supported by requisite material, which apparently has been ignored by the respondents and, therefore, on that count the petition deserves to be accepted. 6. 5. It was submitted that the objections raised by the petitioner were supported by requisite material, which apparently has been ignored by the respondents and, therefore, on that count the petition deserves to be accepted. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents made submissions that as the objections raised have already been examined by the Expert Committee and it has come to the conclusion that the objections do not call for any change in the modal answer key qua question nos. 26 and 110, the said determination does not call for any interference as laid by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan: (2021) 2 SCC 309 . 7. Further, with reference to the determination made by the Expert Committee, submissions were made that the objections raised have been duly considered and, therefore, on that count also no interference is required. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. Question no. 26 reads as under: "26. Rajasthan Union is formed on 25th March, 1948. Who was the head (Maharaj Pramukh) of it? (A) Maharaja of Dhaulpur (B) Maharaja of Karauli (C) Maharav Kota (D) Sirohi Maharaja." 10. The question put was that as the Rajasthan Union was formed on 25/3/1948, who was its 'head' and in the bracket it was indicated as 'Maharaj Pramukh'. 11. Submission made is that on formation of Rajasthan Union on 25/3/1948 the same was headed by Raj Pramukh and not Maharaj Pramukh and that the position of Maharaj Pramukh was created later on and, therefore, the question being incorrect, the same requires deletion. 12. The Expert Committee on consideration of objection came to the conclusion that as the question pertain to 'head' of the Rajasthan Union on 25/3/1948, irrespective of the fact that 'Maharaj Pramukh' was indicated within the brackets, the correct answer was option '(C)' only, which determination cannot be faulted. 13. Besides the above, it would be seen that Maharaj Pramukh on formation of greater Rajasthan Union on 30/3/1949 was Maharaja of Jaipur and same was not part of the options in answer to question no. 26 and as such there apparently was no occasion of any confusion. 14. 13. Besides the above, it would be seen that Maharaj Pramukh on formation of greater Rajasthan Union on 30/3/1949 was Maharaja of Jaipur and same was not part of the options in answer to question no. 26 and as such there apparently was no occasion of any confusion. 14. Even in the petition except for indicating the purported mistake in the question, it is not the case of the petitioner that on account of said indication there has been any confusion with regard to the options provided. In view thereof, no case for interference is made out. 15. The question no. 110 reads as under: "110. The specific gravity of soil is 2.70 and void ratio is 0.667, what will be the value of dry density? feV~Vh dk fof'k"V xq:Ro 2-70 gS vkSj fjfDr vuqikr 0-667 gS] 'kq"d ?kuRo dk ewY; D;k gksxk\ (A) 15.89 kN/m3 (B) 16 kN/m3 (C) 14.45 kN/m3 (D) 14 kN/m3 ' 16. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioner had raised specific objection that in the question value of 'dry density' was asked, however, options given were that of 'Dry Unit Weight' and, therefore, the options being wholly incorrect, the question ought to have been deleted. 17. The question asked is technical pertaining to the subject Engineering and as submitted by learned counsel for the respondents, it has to be left to the Expert Committee to make the determination. 18. A perusal of the determination made by the Expert Committee reveals that objection qua question no. 110 that options are incompatible to the question and all options are wrong, the Committee rejected the objection and has affirmed option '(A)' as correct answer. 19. In support of the determination made, the material produced is solved example downloaded from www.EasyEngineering.net  wherein, for Dry Density answer indicated is 15.89 kN/m3, which is option '(A)' provided in the question paper. As the Experts have come to the conclusion that answer as indicated does not call for any change, and as apparently the subject matter is too technical, besides the fact that the counsel was at loss to elaborate the objection, the Court also has no option but to go by the opinion of the Expert Committee. 20. Consequently, as the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference either in question no. 26 or question no. 20. Consequently, as the petitioner has failed to make out any case for interference either in question no. 26 or question no. 110, the petition has no substance and the same is, therefore, dismissed.