JUDGMENT : (Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.) 1. This Letters Patent Appeal challenges the order dated 13.12.2018 passed by writ Court in W.P.(S) No.7363 of 2017 with W.P.(S) No.1423 of 2018, whereby and whereunder the prayer of appellants for cancelation of Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination held by Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission through Advertisement No.21/2016 and reschedule of the said examination within stipulated time frame has been rejected by the writ Court. Factual Matrix 2. The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that Vide letter No.8280 dated 23.09.2016 and letter No.9441 dated 04.11.2016 issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Government of Jharkhand, requisition were sent to Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (JSSC) for starting selection process for appointment on the post of Combined Graduate Trained Teachers in different subjects for district wise vacancy lying in the State of Jharkhand amongst others, for the post of Assistant Teacher (Physical Education). In pursuance to the aforesaid letters issued by the Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasha, Govt. of Jharkhand, the respondent Nos.1 & 2 published advertisement No.21/16 and online applications were invited. The syllabus was also described in the said advertisement. 3. The appellants are Graduate in different faculty like: Science, Commerce, Arts, Engineering and Physical Education etc. The appellants have submitted their online applications and online admit cards were also downloaded. The date of examination for physical education paper was scheduled to be held on 29.10.2017 and for compulsory paper (G.K. and Hindi Language) on 19.11.2017. The appellants appeared and participated in the said examination. 4. The process of recruitment involved single stage examination consisting of two papers i.e. Paper I-Compulsory Paper (G.K. and Hindi Language)-200 marks and Paper II-Optional Paper (Physical Education)-300 marks. Paper-I was qualifying in nature and securing minimum of 33 marks in the same was compulsory and paper-II (optional paper) consisted of 150 questions of 2 marks each and minimum qualifying marks was 50 % for the candidates belongs to General and OBC category and 45 % for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Paper-I was qualifying in nature and securing minimum of 33 marks in the same was compulsory and paper-II (optional paper) consisted of 150 questions of 2 marks each and minimum qualifying marks was 50 % for the candidates belongs to General and OBC category and 45 % for the candidates belonging to Scheduled Caste and Scheduled Tribes. Paper II prescribed syllabus in three parts: Part-A contains concept of Physical Education, Physiological Aspects of Physical Education, Physical Fitness and Wellness and Training Methods and Sociological Aspects of Physical Education; Part-B History of the game/sports etc., latest general rules of the game/sports, measurement of play fields and specification of sports equipments and specifications of sports equipment; fundamental skills of the game/sports, related sports terminologies, important tournaments and venues, sports personalities, sports awards and Part-C Health Education, Communicable Disease, Contemporary Health Problems, Healthful Living, Family Health Education and Prevention and First Aid for common sports injuries. 5. After conducting the examination, the JSSC uploaded the model answer key on its website and online objections/suggestions were also invited from the candidates from 02.11.2017 to 08.11.2017 and information to the aforesaid effect was also published in the Newspaper (Annexure-A). Thereafter, several candidates submitted their online objections/suggestions to the model answer before the JSSC. 6. The Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission after receipt of objections/suggestions from the candidates placed the same before experts for verification/corrections of the model answer in the light of the objections/suggestions of the candidates. After receiving the opinion of the experts about the model answer key subject wise in the light of the suggestions/objections of the candidates, the JSSC published the modified model answer key(Annexure-B) which is alleged to be binding to the JSSC. 7. The appellants who were writ petitioners prayed for re-examination of physical education paper by cancelling examination of the said paper in connection with Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination, 2016 within a specified period on the grounds of wrong questions, questions out of syllabus and questions not properly framed in English and Hindi language etc. in view of Clause 13 of the instruction appended to the question paper, which reads as under:- Clause 13: “Question of language and literature subjects are in the same language and script or in Hindi/Devnagri script. Question of the rest of the subjects are in Hindi and English. In case of difference in any question in both versions, questions can be cancelled.” 8. Question of the rest of the subjects are in Hindi and English. In case of difference in any question in both versions, questions can be cancelled.” 8. It is stated that the question booklet for the subject of physical education was containing 150 questions, out of which 27 questions were liable to be rejected/cancelled on the ground of wrong and out of syllabus questions. It is also alleged that 11 questions from paper of General Science required to be eliminated on the ground that the questions pertaining to the main subject of physical education were asked. It is alleged that the aforesaid action on the part of the respondents in the matter of setting out different questions for the said two papers in the manner indicated above is not only arbitrary but also discriminatory in nature and violative of article 14 and 16 of Constitution of India. In the premises of above factual background, it was prayed to cancel the said examination for the subject of physical education and direct the respondent Nos.1 and 2 to hold re-examination of the above subject in connection with Combined Graduate Trained Teachers Competitive Examination, 2016 within a specified period. 9. While disposing of the said writ petitions, the writ Court took judicial notice of attending facts and circumstances along with materials produced for consideration and guidelines propounded in several judgments of this High Court and Hon’ble Apex Court and dismissed the writ petitions with reasoned order. 10. Mr. Ajit Kumar, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants raised an argument that in response of objections raised by the appellants against the wrong/out of syllabus questions only three questions were corrected and in respect of nine other questions, the respondent Nos.1 and 2 have failed to take any action. It was the last opportunity to the appellants for appearing in the said competitive examination. Hence, a generous and sympathetical view may be taken. The Learned Single Judge has not considered the contentious points involved in this case regarding 29 wrong and out of syllabus questions which have adversely affected the result of the appellants and also violates the Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, which is sufficient to cancel the examination. Hence, a generous and sympathetical view may be taken. The Learned Single Judge has not considered the contentious points involved in this case regarding 29 wrong and out of syllabus questions which have adversely affected the result of the appellants and also violates the Articles 14 and 16 of Constitution of India, which is sufficient to cancel the examination. Learned counsel has placed reliance on reported judgment of Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta v. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309 . 11. Per contra, Learned counsel for the respondents-Mr. Himanshu Shekhar has vehemently opposed the points of arguments placed on behalf of appellants. The learned counsel for the respondents justifying the impugned order has placed reliance on the following judgments:- (i) H.P. Public Service Commission V. Mukesh Thakur (2010) 6 SCC 759 , (ii) Ran Vijay Singh V. State of U.P. , (2018) 2 SCC 357 (iii) Bihar Staff Selection Commission V. Arun Kumar, (2020) 6 SCC 362 (iv) Vikesh Kumar Gupta V. State of Rajasthan, (2021) 2 SCC 309 (v) Satyajit Kumar v. State of Jharkhand, 2022 SCC OnLine SC 954: 2022 (4) JLJR 60(SC). 12. We have given anxious consideration to over all aspects of the case in the light of materials available on record and rival contentions of the parties. 13. The main grievance of the appellants is that some wrong /out of syllabus questions were asked in the main subject. So far 11 questions of the optional subject of physical education were also asked in paper No. II General Science, that can not be said to be prejudicial to the interest of the appellants rather the same has benefitted them. 14. So far plea of the appellants, that some questions were out of syllabus also can not be accepted as out of syllabus questions were for every candidate participating in the examination not only for the appellants. Moreover, such a plea appears to be vague and requires detailed scrutiny in the matter. 15. This court in the case of Aashish Kumar Chaurasia Vs. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2018) 4 JLJR 107 has held that in the event of doubt, benefit should go to the Examination Authority rather than to the candidates. Even if some questions were asked out of syllabus, the candidates can not take benefit out of it for allotment of grace marks. State of Jharkhand and Ors. (2018) 4 JLJR 107 has held that in the event of doubt, benefit should go to the Examination Authority rather than to the candidates. Even if some questions were asked out of syllabus, the candidates can not take benefit out of it for allotment of grace marks. Admittedly, appellants had appeared in the examination without any objection and after being declared unsuccessful, they have raised objection with respect to the standard of questions, which is not sustainable at all in the eyes of law. 16. In Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission V. Mukesh Thakur, (2010) 6 SCC 759 on which reliance has been placed by learned counsel for respondents, it was 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.” 17. Plea of the appellants that out of 150 questions, 26 questions ought to be rejected in view of the clause 13 of the instruction appended to the Booklet i.e., “in case of difference in any question in both versions i.e.. Hindi and English, questions will be cancelled” is fit to be rejected on the ground that the JSSC after conducting the examination, published the Model Answers for objections/suggestions by the candidates and after publication of the Model Answers, the candidates have also submitted their objections/suggestions before the JSSC and the JSSC placed the aforesaid suggestions/objections before the experts for verification and correction and on the basis of the advice and correction made by the experts on the Model Answers final revised Model Answers was published and in subject of physical education three questions were nullified. As per the decision of the JSSC full marks were given for aforesaid three questions to all candidates and corrected model answers were also published and on the basis of advice and correction made by the experts, the O.M.R. Sheets of the candidates were evaluated through scanning machine. 18. The learned counsel for the respondents had relied upon the judgment of Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta V. State of Rajasthan (supra) wherein it has been held that the court should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matter and in any event, assessment of questions by the court itself to arrive at correct answer is not permissible. 19. The Hon’ble Apex Court in plethora of judgments has indicated the scope of judicial review under Article 226 of Constitution of India and held that in matters concerning evaluation of candidates, particularly, for the purpose of public services the scope is narrow. 20. In the case of Bihar Staff Selection Commission v. Arun Kumar, (2020) 6 SCC 362 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has reiterated the principles laid down in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Seth and Anr. (1984) 4 SCC 27 held as under:- ‘’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 grassroot 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.’ 21. The decision in Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297, after a review of all previous decisions, held as follows: “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. The decision in Ran Vijay Singh vs. State of U.P., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 : (2018) 1 SCC (L&S) 297, after a review of all previous decisions, held as follows: “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. 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 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.” 22. In view of aforesaid discussion and legal propositions laid down by this Court and Hon’ble Apex Court, we do not find any substance in the pleas taken by appellants regarding wrong/out of syllabus or accurate language of questions in Hindi version etc. to make a ground for re-evaluation or cancellation of examination. We concur with findings of writ Court, accordingly this Letters Patent Appeal stands dismissed. 23. I. A. No.6870 of 2023 filed by the intervenor for making them as party appellants is also dismissed in the light of the dismissal of this Letters Patent Appeal. As the learned counsel for the intervenor applicant has accepted the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants. 24. I.A. No.5393 filed on behalf of the appellants for placing on record certain documents and stay of order passed by D.C., Ranchi stands disposed off. (Shree Chandrashekhar, J.)