JUDGMENT : 1. It has been stated that the State Government of Rajasthan has appointed the Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer as a nodal agency to conduct the Rajasthan Eligibility Examination for Teachers (REET) for Level I and Level II, which is only an eligibility test of candidates, in order to participate in the recruitment process for appointment on the post of Teacher Grade III, Level I-Primary School (Class-I to VI) and Level II-Upper Primary School (Class-VI to VIII). The Board of Secondary Education, Ajmer through its coordinator (hereinafter referred as “the Board”) issued advertisement No.01/2022 dated 12.04.2022 to conduct the test of REET-2022, scheduled on 23.07.2022 and 24.07.2022. The test of REET-2022 for Level I was conducted in one shift only i.e. morning shift on 23.07.2022 and test for REET Level II came to be conducted in three shifts i.e. in evening shift on 23.07.2022, in morning and evening shifts on 24.07.2022. 2. It has been stated that all petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions, appeared to qualify the test of REET-2022 for Level II in different shifts. Question paper for REET-2022 of Level II examination was comprising 150 questions of objective type with multiple choice answers carrying one mark for each question, for total 150 questions. A candidate of General category is required to secure minimum 60% marks and candidate of reserve category is required minimum 55% marks in order to declare pass in REET Examination and to issue the REET certificate by the Board. The Board declared provisional answer key on its website on 18.08.2022 and then invited objections in respect of answers to 150 questions suggested by the Board in the provisional answer key, till 25.08.2022. Thereafter, the Board issued final answer key as also the result of REET -2022 Level II on 29.09.2022. 3. It is not in dispute that any of the petitioner could not secure minimum qualifying marks in the REET-2022, Level II examination of which result came to be declared on 29.09.2022, hence, REET certificate has not been issued by the Board in favour of any of petitioners. Thereafter, petitioners have filed writ petitions, to question the correctness of final answer key dated 29.09.2022 in respect of objectionable questions as referred in writ petitions and have sought to revise the result dated 29.09.2022 in respect of REET-2022 Level II. Thereafter, petitioners have filed writ petitions, to question the correctness of final answer key dated 29.09.2022 in respect of objectionable questions as referred in writ petitions and have sought to revise the result dated 29.09.2022 in respect of REET-2022 Level II. Since grievance of writ petitioners are similar and relief prayed for is common in nature and in these petitions, petitioners are assailing the different questions, out of REET Examination-2022 Level II, in respect of correctness of answers, for deletion of questions due to declaring two correct answers and to claim bonus marks as also on the ground that few questions are out of syllabus, therefore, with consent of counsel for both parties, all writ petitions were tagged together in order to hear and decide all petitions simultaneously. Counsel for both parties have been heard together at length and this common judgment would decide all writ petitions. 4. In SBCWP No.17259/2022 (Khem Chand Chauhan Vs. The State of Rajasthan), petitioner has also challenged the normalization procedure adopted by the Board to equalize candidates appeared in three different shift for the same examination of REET-2022, apart from assailing final answer key in respect of two questions but the prayer to revise the final result dated 29.09.2022 is same like other writ petitioners. 5. Counsel for both parties are consensus that only, total 13 questions out of question papers of three shifts of Teacher Grade III Level II are objectionable in the present batch of writ petitions which have been identified from the shift-wise question papers as under: (i) From question paper of shift 2, questions No.15, 17, 24, 29, 30, 70 and 96. (ii) From question paper of shift 3, questions No.18 and 107. (iii) From question paper of shift 4, questions No.35, 111, 133 and 147. All objectionable questions have been narrated hereinafter in foregoing paras. 6. Counsel for petitioners argued that question No.15, 17, 24, 29, 30, 70 of shift 2, question No.18 of shift 3 and questions No.35, 133 and 147 of shift 4, have wrongly been answered by the Board and answer given by the Board is different from text books/materials produced by petitioners, therefore, such questions either be ordered to be answered correctly by the Board according to the text book material or be referred to the Committee of Experts of subject concerned, to re-assess the correct answer. 7. 7. Question No.96 of shift 2 and question No.111 of shift 4, have been objected that both questions are out of syllabus, hence, same deserve to be deleted. 8. Question No.107 of shift 3, has been objected that the Board declared two answers as correct answers, hence, same deserves to be deleted. 9. The normalization formula adopted by the Board has been sought to be challenged on the ground that the Board should use the normalization formula to equalize candidates shift-wise as well as subject-wise, whereas the Board has applied normalization formula to equalize candidates shift-wise only. 10. E-converso, counsel appearing on behalf of respondent-Board vehemently argued that initially provisional answer key was published by the Board on 18.08.2022 and objections in respect of answers to 150 questions, were invited till 25.08.2022. After receipt of objections, the Committee of Experts have analyzed all objections, which received from candidates, wherein objection as raised by petitioners in present writ petitions are included and after dealing with objections coupled with the prevailing text material have finalized the answer to the objectionable questions and then final answer key on 29.09.2022 was issued and on the basis of final answer key, the result of REET-2022 Level II has been declared on 29.09.2022 itself. It has also been argued that the text material relied upon by petitioners is not only the sole authentic material and even the Expert Committee of respondent Board has taken into consideration text material as relied upon by petitioners as well, while analyzing objections, guided by the other relevant, authentic and reliable material/text books. 11. Learned counsel for respondents argued that since the Expert Committee has already examined correctness of answers to objectionable questions, therefore, the prayer of petitioners to change the finally corrected answers suggested by the Expert Committee or to refer objectionable questions again to the Expert Committee, is misconceived as much as beyond the scope of judicial review in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In respect of applying normalization formula, it has been contended that since the examination was conducted in three different shifts scheduled in two different shifts, therefore, to ensure an equal level playing field, respondents applied normalization formula in accordance with clause 7.10 of the advertisement dated 12.04.2022. In respect of applying normalization formula, it has been contended that since the examination was conducted in three different shifts scheduled in two different shifts, therefore, to ensure an equal level playing field, respondents applied normalization formula in accordance with clause 7.10 of the advertisement dated 12.04.2022. It has further been contended that normalization formula does not affect candidates in any manner, since raw marks of any of the candidate have not been reduced after normalization and the formula has been applied uniformly for all the candidates, hence, no particular candidate has been adversely affected or discriminated. Thus, all writ petitions are devoid of substance and deserve to be dismissed. 12. Heard. Considered. 13. It is worthy to note that counsel for Board, during course of arguments, made available copy of consideration made by the Expert Committee to objections raised by candidates in respect of objectionable questions and the photocopy of such consideration by the Expert Committee have also been made available to counsel for petitioners. One set of photocopy has been taken on record in the file of SBCWP No.19364/2022 (Ashutosh Jangid Vs. State of Rajasthan). 14. In order to deal with objectionable questions raised by and on behalf of petitioners and in order to see the discussion made by the Expert Committee to such objections, it would be apposite to reproduce all objectionable questions along with consideration by the Expert Committee to such objections made by candidates. “Level II, Shift 2 Question No.15. Which level of measurement is least used in educational psychology? (A) Ordinal Scale (B) Nominal Scale (C) Ratio Scale (D) Equal interval Scale f'k{kk euksfoKku es fdl Lrj ds ekiu dk U;wure iz;ksx fd;k tkrk gS\ (A) Øelwpd ekiuh (B) ukfed ekiuh (C) vkuqikfrd ekiuh (D) leku varjky ekiuh Consideration : ^^fooj.k %& vkifŸkdrkZvksa }kjk izLrqr vkifŸk;kW fujk/kkj gS vkifŸkdrkZ }kjk izLrqr layXu mi;qDRk ugha gS vkifŸkvks esa ukfer ekiuh ekiu dk fupyk Lrj gS tcfd iwNk x;k iz'Uk ekiuh ds f'k{kk esa fuEu mi;ksx ls lEcaf/kr gS blfy, desVh }kjk vkifŸk [kkfjt dh tkrh gS cksMZ dk mŸkj lh ¼jk'ku Ldsy½ lgh lanHkZ layXu gS lqjsUnz HkkLdj] cky fodkl ,oa f'k{kk euksfoKku ist uaŒ408&409 fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ;%& C Question No.17. Which method is NOT valid to study the role of heredity? Which method is NOT valid to study the role of heredity? (A) Twin Study (B) Parent-Child analysis (C) Adoption Study (D) Peer group Study vkuqoaf'kdrk dh Hkwfedk ds v/;;u ds fy;s dkSu lh fof/k oS/k ugah gS (A) tqM+ok cPpks dk v/;;u (C) vfHkHkkod ckyd fo'ys"k.k (C) nŸkd xzg.k v/;;u (D) leo;Ld lewg v/;;u Consideration fooj.k& Board answer remained correct that is options D of question no. 17. Reference from** Singh has been attached. Objection raised by the candidate is rejected. (documents provided by the candidate is not relevant to the query raised.) Reference.:-Arun Kumar Singh Shiksha Manovigyan Pg. 77,78,79,80,81,82, Arun Kumar Singh+Aashish Kumar Singh = Pratiyogita Manovigyan Pg. 249 * fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ; %&</font> D Question No.24. Which factor is NOT related to growth of a child? (A) Nutrition (B)Health (C) Sleep (D) Domicile ,d ckyd dh o`f) ls dkSu lk dkjd lEcaf/kr ugh gS (A) iks"k.k (B) LokLF; (C) funzk (D) vf/kokl Consideration fooj.k The answer raised by board is absolutely correct that is option D of question no. 24. The query raised with supportive document is not relevant at all by the student. Therefore objection raised is rejected. Reference: Dr. Surendra Bhaskar Shiksha Manovigyan Pg-124-125. fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ; %& D D Question No.29. Which of the following is NOT true for the theoretical concept of personality? (A) Stable (B) Normal (C) Enduring (D) Unique O;fDrRo dh lS)kfard vo/kkj.kk ds fy;s fuEu es ls dkSu lk lR; ugah gS (A) fLFkj (B) lkekU; (C) LFkk;h (D) vuwBk Consideration “ fooj.k%& Board answer remained correct i.e. option B of question No. 29. Relevant reference to support the answer is from book Shiksha ManoVigyan, by Arun Kumar Singh, Pg No. 467. Therefore the Objection raised is Rejected. NCERT Psychology XII Page no. 28-29 ** fo"k; fo'ks”kK dk fu.kZ; %& B Question No.30. Which test is culture free Non verbal test of Intelligence? (A) Group test of Intelligence (B) Weschler Adult Intelligence Scale (C) Bhatia Battery (D) Standard Progressive Matrices dkSu lk ijh{k.k cqf}erk dk laLd`fr eqDr o okfpd ijh{k.k gS (A) cqf)erk dk lewg ijh{k.k (B) oS'kyj o;Ld cqf)erk ekiuh (C) HkkfV;k cSVjh (D) LVS.MMZ izksxzsflo eSfVªlt~ Consideration Based raised option is correct that option D of question no. 30 (reference: Pg-5 Arun Kumar Singh) The objection raised stays rejected is not relevant provided b the student is not relevant. 30 (reference: Pg-5 Arun Kumar Singh) The objection raised stays rejected is not relevant provided b the student is not relevant. The documents provided by the students itself says the options D is correct as SPM is a part of RPM. Objection raised stays Rejected. fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ; %& D Question No.70. The communicative approach in teaching of English has been practiced and developed in? (A) India and England (B) Indonesia and Japan (C) England and America (D) China and Japan Consideration: According to candidates objection Brita & America are discussion and researching on CLT but the methods were practised and developed in China & Japan. Hence Board's answer *D* is correct (1) Reference:-Pedology of English Language by Praveen (2) Reference:-Teaching of English -Hena Siddiqui Page No. 106. fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ; %& D Question No.96. When was Street Vendors (Protection of Livelihood and Regulation of Street Vending) Act came in for in India ? (A) 2010 (B) 2011 (C) 2013 (D) 2014 Hkkjr es iFk foØsrk ¼thfodk laj{k.k vkSj iFk foØ; fofu;eu½ vf/kfu;e dc ykxw gqvk\ (A) 2010 (B) 2011 (C) 2013 (D) 2014 Consideration: fooj.k %& vH;FkhZ }kjk viuh vkifŸk esa iz'u la[;k 110 es lHkh fodYiksa dks xyr crk;k x;k gSA tcfd ;g vf/kfu;e 01-05-2014 ls ykxw gqvk gSA vH;FkhZ }kjk yxk;k x;k lk{; ftlesa frfFk 20-03-2015 n'kkZ;h x;h gS okLro esa ;g fgUnh vuqokn dh izdk'ku frfFk gSA ;g vf/kfu;e 2014 ls gh ykxw gSA vr% vH;FkhZ dh vkifŸk [kkfjt fd;s tkus ;ksX; gS cksMZ }kjk tkjh fodYi Mh iw.kZr;k lgh gSA vH;FkhZ iz'u dks ikB;Øe ls ckgj gksus dh vkifŸk Hkh dj jgs gSA tcfd fof/k fuekZ.k laln dk dk;Z gSA tks fd ikB;Øe dk fgLlk gSA vr% ;g vkifŸk Hkh [kkfjt fd; tkus ;ksX; gSA fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ; %& D Level II, Shift 3 Question No.18. Main objective of action research is_______ ? (A) Activity (B) Diagnostic (C) Descriptive (D) Transformative fØ;kRed vuqla/kku dk izeq[ mnns'; gS (A) fØ;kfof/k ( B) (C) fooj.kkRed ( D) :ikUrjdkjh Consideration: fooj.k %& vkifŸkdrkZvksa }kjk mijksDr iz'u ds lEca/k esa ntZ dh xbZ vkifŸk;kW fujk/kkj gSA izkfFkZ;ks }kjk izLrqr fd;s x;s lUnHkZ lUnfeZr ugh gS fd;k vuql/kku f'k{k.k iz.kkyh esa :ikarj.k@lq/kkj ykuk gSA cksMZ dk mŸkj Mh :ikarj.k lgh gSA lgh lUnHkZ lyXu gSA woolfolka Mishra & Jha fundamentals of education psychology. page no.-21 lqjsUnz Hkkjdj] cky fodkl ,oa f'k{kk euksfoKku ist uaŒ4 ** fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ; %& D Question No.107. Vardhman Mahavir belonged to which dynasty? (A) Lichhavis (B) Haryank (C) Shakya (D) Satavahan Ok/kZeku egkohj fdl oa'k ls lacf/kr Fks\ (A) fyPNoh (B) g;Zd (C) 'kkD; (D) lkrokgu Consideration: fooj.k %&107 vH;FkhZ }kjk LEVEL-II SHIFT-2) Series-D dks iz'u la[;k 98 ds lanHkZ esa vH;fFkZ;ksZ dh vusdks vkifŸk;k izkIr gqbZ gS izLrqr vkifŸk;ks dks voyksdu ds mijkar dqN vkifŸk;ks lgh ikbZ xbZ gS izLrqr iz'u dk cksMZ }kjk fu/kkZfjr mŸkj fodYi ^^,^^ ¼fyPNoh½ vksj & tkjh fd;k x;k gSaA vH;fFkZ;ks }kjk izLrqr izek.k esa fyPNoh dks g;aZd oa'k dk fudV lac/kh gksuk Hkh crk;k x;k gS muds }kjk izLrqr lk{; lgh o izkekf.kd gSA vr% izLrqr iz'Uk ds nks fodYi & “A” ¼fyPNoh½ vkSj & “B” ¼g"kZd½ nksuks lgh gSaaA ** fo"k; fo'ks”kK dk fu.kZ; %& A&B Level II Shift 4:- Question No.35. ek=srj Hkk"kkvks ds f'k{k.k dh izkphu fof/k;ksa esa ls fHkUu fof/k Gs (A) Hkk"kk lalxZ fof/k (B) vizR;{k fof/k (C) [ksy fof/k (D) ikB; iqLrd iz.kkyh Consideration: fooj.k & vkifŸkdrkZ }kjk tks vkifŸk dh xbZ gS og Lohdkj;ksX; ugha gS vkifŸkdrkZ dks mŸkj D ;gh lgh gS D;ksfd ekr`Hkk"kk ls brj Hkk"kk iढkus esa ikB;iqLrd dk p;u izkphu gS vr% vkifŸkdrkZ dh vkifŸk vLohdkj dh tkrh gS cksMZ dk mŸkj C lgh gS ** fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ; & C Question No.111. In 1947, he was then Director General of the Archaeological Survey of India. (A) Alexander Cunningham (B) R.C. Banerjee (C) R.E.M. Wheeler (D) Sir Jhon Marshal 1947 es Hkkjrh; iqjkRkRo losZ{k.k ds rRdkyhu Mk;jsDVj tujy (A) vysDtSaMj dfUk?ke (B) vkj-lh- (C) vkj-bZ-,e-Oghyj (D) lj tkWu ek'kZy Consideration; fooj.k %& vH;FkhZ }kjk LEVEL-II (SHIFT-4) series-D ds iz'u la[;k 95 ds lanHkZ esa iz'Uk ds ikB;Øe ls ckgj gksus lEcaf/kr vkifŸk dh xbZ gS voyksdu ds mijkar Li"V gS fd iz'u fu/kkZfjr ikB;Øe ls lEcaf/kr gS tks ikB;ØEk ds 'kh"kZd ^^flU/kq ?kkVh dh lH;rk dk gh ,d Hkkx gSA ^^izek.k fujLr djus ;ksX; gSA ** fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ; & C Question No.133. Which one of the following is not the aim of Social Science ? (A) Intellectual and Mental development. Which one of the following is not the aim of Social Science ? (A) Intellectual and Mental development. (B) Utilization of leisure time (C) Helpful in bringing social changes (D) Teaching etiquettes fuEu es ls dkSu lk lkekftd foKku dk y{; Ukgh gS\ (A) CkkSf)d o ekufld fodkl (B) vodk'k ds le; dk lnqi;ksx djuk (C) lkekftd ifjorZu ykus esa lgk;d cuuk (D) f'k{k.k f'k"Vkpkj Consideration : fooj.k cksMZ }kjk miyC/k D series- ds iz'u laa[;k 146 esa cksMZ dk mŸkj fodYi D lgh gS blds leFkZu S.K. Mangal dh iqLrd Pedagogy of Social science ds i`"B la[;k 40] 41] 42 laYkXu gS vkifŸkdrkZ }kjk fd;k x;k lk{; fujFkZd Gsa ** fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ; & D Question No.147. In August, at which latitude does the Subtropical Easterly Jet Stream blow in India (A) 8° North (B) 15° North (C) 27° North (D) 37° VxLr ekg esa Hkkjr es miks”.kdfVca/khu iwohZ tsV LVªhe /kkjk fdl v{kk'k ij izokfgr gksrh gS (A) 8° m Ÿkj (B) 15 ° m Ÿkj (C) 27 ° m Ÿkj (D) 37 ° m Ÿkj Consideration; fooj.k & candidate ref. Is not relevant, hence overruled. Board's answer (B) is correct. Reference: India-Physical Environment NCERT Class-XI-Sem -II-2003 pg.-40 ** fo"k; fo'ks"kK dk fu.kZ; & B” 15. From perusal of consideration/discussion made by the Expert Committee dealing with objections raised by candidates in respect of objectionable questions, it appears that all objections raised by petitioners in the present batch of writ petitions have already been dealt with by the Expert Committee extensively and reasons have also been assigned to reject objections as well as to justify correct answer of questions No.15, 17, 24, 29, 30, 70 of shift 2, question No.18 of shift 3 and questions No.35, 133 and 147 of shift 4, the declaration of dual correct answer of question No.107 of shift 3 and question No.96 & 111 have been observed to be within scope of syllabus. 16. Counsel for petitioners are not able to point out that objections raised or the text material relied upon by them, have not been taken into consideration by the Expert Committee while dealing with objections received against the provisional answer key. 16. Counsel for petitioners are not able to point out that objections raised or the text material relied upon by them, have not been taken into consideration by the Expert Committee while dealing with objections received against the provisional answer key. Though, counsel for petitioner sought to rely upon the text material produced with writ petitions to justify answers chosen by petitioners in respect of objectionable question but it is settled proposition of law that this Court is not supposed to sit over the decision of the Expert Committee, to check/verify the correctness of answer to objectionable questions with the aid of text material produced by petitioners with writ petitions. The scope of judicial review to interfere in the opinion/decision of the Expert Committee more particularly in respect of academic matters, is very very narrow and none of objectionable questions calls for any interference within the that limited scope. 17. In order to emphasize the scope of judicial review to interfere in the matter of academic questions in the qualifying/recruitment examination conducted by the public body and it would not be out of place to refer few of decisions rendered by the Apex Court: (i) In the celebrated judgment of the Apex Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh And Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Ors. [ (2018) 2 SCC 357 ], a two Judge Bench of the Supreme Court referred to large number of earlier decisions and culled out the broad principles applicable in such situations. Following observations may be noted:- 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 reevaluation 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 scrutinize 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. 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. 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. 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. (ii) More recently in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta and Ors. Vs. State Of Rajasthan and Ors., [ (2021) 2 SCC 309 ], the Supreme Court after referring to decision in case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) had observed as under:- “16. 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. 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. 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 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.” 18. 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.” 18. Having considered the limited scope of judicial review and after going through the analysis made by the Expert Committee to objections in respect of objectionable questions as referred hereinabove, this Court is of the unequivocal opinion that there is no scope to interfere with the final answer key dated 29.09.2022 in respect of objectionable questions and to revise the result dated 29.09.2022 to the examination of REET -2022 Level II. Counsel for petitioners have not been able to point out any such gross infirmity or glaring error/illegality on the part of Expert Committee to finalize final answer key dated 29.09.2022 published by the Board in respect of REET-2022 Level II, which is apparent and can be gathered without detained and through examination of entire text material or without any inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. Hence, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the final answer key in respect of objectionable 13 questions as well as with the final result dated 29.09.2022. 19. In addition, it would also be worthwhile to refer that final answer key and the result dated 29.09.2022 in respect of REET2022 Level II was also challenged and sought to be revised, on the ground of assailing answers of few questions before the Coordinate Bench of Rajasthan High Court at Principal Seat, Jodhpur by way of SBCWP No.19079/2022 (Gena Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan). In that writ petition, the Coordinate Bench came to same conclusion, as has been opined by this Court and finally the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2023. This Court finds concurrence to its view with the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench in case of Gena Ram (Supra). 20. State of Rajasthan). In that writ petition, the Coordinate Bench came to same conclusion, as has been opined by this Court and finally the writ petition was dismissed vide order dated 05.04.2023. This Court finds concurrence to its view with the order dated 05.04.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench in case of Gena Ram (Supra). 20. As far as challenge to the formula of normalization is concerned, it is suffice to observe that the formula of normalization has been adopted by the Board to bring all candidates on equal level playing field, that too in conformity to clause 7.10 of the advertisement dated 12.04.2022, since the examination of REET – 2022 Level II was undisputedly conducted in three different shifts on 23.07.2022 and 24.07.2022, wherein lakhs number of candidates participated. It has been contended on behalf of respondent that by application of normalization, raw marks of any of the candidate have not been reduced and the formula has been applied uniformly, none of candidate has been individually affected adversely or has been discriminated. There is no allegations of malafides or arbitrariness in applying normalization formula. It is not in dispute that the normalization formula has been applied uniformly. In case of State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Atul Kumar Dwivedi & Ors. [AIR (2022) SC 973], while dealing with the examination of the post of Sub-Inspector Police, in respect of scaling of marks by adopting process of normalization, has been observed in para 53 of the judgment as under:- “In conclusion, the exercise undertaken by the Board in adopting the process of normalization at the initial stage, that is to say, at the level of Rule 15(b) of Recruitment Rules was quite consistent with the requirements of law. The power exercised by the Board was well within its jurisdiction and as emphasized by the High Court there were no allegations of mala fides or absence of bona fides at any juncture of the process. One more facet of the matter is the note of caution expressed by this Court in paragraph 20 of its decision in Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others. One more facet of the matter is the note of caution expressed by this Court in paragraph 20 of its decision in Sunil Kumar and others v. Bihar Public Service Commission and others. As observed by this Court, the decisions made by expert bodies, including the Public Services Commissions, should not be lightly interfered with, unless instances of arbitrary and mala fide exercise of power are made out.” Therefore, in absence of allegations of mala fide or non-application of the normalization formula uniformly, this Court does not find any force in challenge made by petitioners in SBCWP No.17259/2022 the normalization procedure adopted by respondents and hence, such ground to assail the final result dated 29.09.2022 is also rejected. 21. No other arguments except which have been dealt with by this Court hereinabove, have been urged from either of the side. 22. As a final result, writ petitions do not have any substance on merits and accordingly same are hereby dismissed. No Costs. 23. Stay application and other pending application(s), if any, stand disposed of.