ORDER : 1. These writ petitions have been filed by the petitioners questioning the validity of the final answer key issued by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board pertaining to the written examination for Village Development Officer Direct Recruitment, 2021. 2. The advertisement dated 6.9.2021 was issued by the Board for as many as 3222 posts in Non-TSP area and 674 posts in TSP area. The recruitment process inter alia envisaged two stages examination; preliminary exam to be in qualifying nature; and final examination wherein candidates, 15 times the number of posts, would be eligible. 3. The petitioners applied pursuant to the advertisement and the final written test was held on 9.7.2022. The question paper contained 160 multiple choice questions with 4 choices and the maximum marks were 200. 4. The Board published the preliminary answer key on 13.7.2022 along with a Press Note, whereby, online objections towards preliminary answer key were invited from the interested candidates with respective supporting material. After considering the objections on 29.7.2022, final answer key was issued based on the decision taken by the Expert Committee over the objections raised by the candidates. 5. The petitioners have raised issues pertaining to question nos.15, 34, 78, 114, 129, 132 and 144. 6. Learned counsel for the respondent – Board made submissions that the Bench at Jaipur in Kushal Bhardwaj v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.11616/2022 & other connected matters, decided on 7.6.2023, has already dealt with questions nos.15, 34, 132 and 144 and as such the issues raised qua the said questions stand concluded. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions on question nos.78, 114 and 129. 8. The Bench at Jaipur in the case of Kaushal Bhardwaj (supra) dealt with 13 questions and after taking into consideration the law laid down by Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. v. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.: (2018) 2 SCC 357 , Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Ors. v. State of Rajasthan & Ors.: (2021) 2 SCC 309 , Kanpur University v. Samit Gupta: (1983) 4 SCC 309 and Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh & Anr.: (2018) 7 SCC 2541 etc. accepted the objections qua question no.132 and 144 and directed the Board to resend the same to the Expert Committee for re-assessment / re-evaluation of the answers. accepted the objections qua question no.132 and 144 and directed the Board to resend the same to the Expert Committee for re-assessment / re-evaluation of the answers. The objections pertaining to question no.15 and 34 were rejected. 9. In that view of the matter as the issues raised qua question no.15, 34, 132 and 144 stand concluded by a Coordinate Bench judgment in the case of Kushal Bhardwaj (supra), the cases of the petitioners qua the said questions would be governed by the said judgment. 10. The issues raised pertaining to question nos.78, 114 and 129 now remain for determination by this Court. 11. The English version of question no.78 inter alia reads as under:- “78. The cause of mirage formation in desert is - (A) the refractive index of atmosphere decreases with decrease in height (B) the refractive index of atmosphere increases with decrease in height (C) the refractive index of atmosphere does not change with height (D) Scattering” 12. The Hindi version of question no.78 reads as under:- ^^78- e:LFky esa e`xr`".kk ds fuekZ.k dk dkj.k gSa & ¼,½ ÅWpkbZ ds lkFk ok;qeaMy dk viorZukad ?kVrk gS ¼ch½ ÅWpkbZ ds lkFk ok;qeaMy dk viorZukd cढ~rk gS ¼lh½ ÅWpkbZ ds lkFk ok;qeaMy dk viorZukad ugha cnyrk gS ¼Mh½ izdh.kZu^^ 13. The objections were raised regarding answer to question no.78 which in preliminary and final answer key was indicated as ‘A’. The objection was raised that as the answers indicated in the Hindi version was incomplete and, therefore, the question was liable to be ‘deleted’. The experts relied on the same material as relied on by the petitioners i.e. NCERT 12th (Physics) Part-2, Chapter-IX, Page-321 (part of Annex.10), however, the Committee opined that though there is difference in the Hindi and English version, as it has been provided in the instructions that if there is any sort of ambiguity/mistake either of printing or factual nature in Hindi and English version of the question, the English version will be treated as standard and as the English version was correct, the plea raised by the candidates was declined. 14. 14. Learned counsel for the petitioners made submissions that a bare look at the English version and the Hindi version would reveal that the basic aspect ‘decrease’ in height as indicated in option ‘A’ and ‘B’ of English version was not even present in the Hindi version in options ‘A’ & ‘B’ which aspect alone was relevant, in absence whereof, options were wholly vague, rather incorrect and, therefore, the question was liable to be deleted. 15. It was submitted that the reliance placed on the instruction has no basis, inasmuch as, in absence of the word ‘decrease’, option can neither be termed as ambiguity nor mistake and, therefore, the said question deserves to be deleted. 16. Learned counsel appearing for the Board reiterated the determination made by the experts. It was fairly conceded that the Hindi version does not contain the aspect of ‘decrease’ in height in option ‘A’ & ‘B’, however, in view of the instruction, as the English version was correct along with correct option ‘A’, the same did not require any interference. 17. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 18. It is not in dispute that the English version and Hindi version are different as the expert themselves have admitted the said aspect. A perusal of the material produced clearly shows that absence of the word in Hindi version of ‘decrease’ in height in option ‘A’ and ‘B’, which word was crucially relevant for arriving at a correct option. 19. The reliance placed on instruction-10 for sustaining the answer ‘A’ as correct is apparently misplaced. The instruction-10 inter alia reads as under:- “10. If there is any sort of ambiguity/mistake either of printing or factual nature in Hindi and English version of the question, the English version will be treated as standard.” 20. A perusal of the above would reveal that the same pertains to ambiguity/mistake in printing or factual nature, the same nowhere provides that even if the crucial words would be missing from either of the versions, the version in English would be treated as the correct version. A perusal of the above would reveal that the same pertains to ambiguity/mistake in printing or factual nature, the same nowhere provides that even if the crucial words would be missing from either of the versions, the version in English would be treated as the correct version. The said aspect only takes care of cases when there is dispute pertaining to the manner of the words used in both the languages, however, the said instruction cannot be put to use to get away with the non-indication of crucial aspects in Hindi version of the answer, it is not expected of the candidates to look into the English version in a given case, wherein, apparently, the answer indicated is either incorrect or incomplete and even if the option given is incorrect, relying on the English version to mark answers. In view thereof, the action of the Committee to reject the objection relying on instruction-10, cannot be sustained. 21. Question no.114 reads as under:- “114. According to the 73rd amendment of the Panchayati Raj System of the Constitution, Which statements are correct? (i) In Panchayati Raj Institutions at least 2/3 of the post of Chairperson are reserved for women. (ii) 11th schedule was added in the Constitution by the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. (iii) Madhya Pradesh was the first state to implement the 73rd Constitutional Amendment. (iv) The 73rd Constitutional Amendment Act came into force from April 24, 1994. (A) (i) and (iii) (B) (ii) and (iii) (C) (ii), (iii) and (i) (D) (ii), (iii) and (iv)” 22. In preliminary answer key, answer ‘B’ was indicated as correct, however, in final key the same was deleted. The petitioners insist that answer ‘B’ is correct. The experts while dealing with the objections raised by the candidates came to the conclusion that all the 4 answers were not correct and while accepting the objections of certain candidates proposed ‘deletion’ of the question. The experts came to the conclusion that statement (iii) that Madhya Pradesh was the first State to implement 73rd Constitutional Amendment was incorrect, as before Madhya Pradesh, Karnataka had implemented the same and as in all the options to the question, (iii) statement was indicated, all the 4 answers were incorrect. 23. The experts attached material to indicate that Madhya Pradesh Amendment received assent of Governor on 24.1.1994, whereas, the Karnataka implemented it on 30.4.1993. 24. 23. The experts attached material to indicate that Madhya Pradesh Amendment received assent of Governor on 24.1.1994, whereas, the Karnataka implemented it on 30.4.1993. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioners attempted to make submissions seeking to support the version that the Madhya Pradesh was the first State to implement the 73rd Constitution Amendment, however, failed to produce any material in this regard. In view thereof, the decision of the Expert Committee, which is based on relevant material, does not call for any interference. 25. Question no.129 reads as under:- “129. Which one of the following (Research institute – State/place) is not matched correctly? (A) Central Sugarcane Research Institute – Coimbatore (B) Central Plantation Crops Research Institute – Kasargod. (C) Central Coffee Research Institute – Bellary (D) Central Tobacco Research Institute – Rajahmundry.” 26. The correct answer in the preliminary and final answer key has been indicated as ‘C’. The objection was raised that answer ‘A’ was also correct as the Central Sugarcane Research Institute was not at Coimbatore, therefore, as two answers ‘A’ and ‘C’ both were correct, the question was liable to be ‘deleted’. 27. The experts while dealing with the said objections raised by the candidates simply attached the proof regarding the option ‘C’ being the correct option as the Central Coffee Research Institute was not situated at Bellari but was situated at Chikmagalur district of Karnataka, however, the plea raised that the Central Sugarcane Research Institute was also not an institute situated at Coimbatore, has not at all been dealt with by the experts. The petitioners have produced material to indicate that the Sugarcane Breeding Institute ICAR was situated at Coimbatore and that no institute like Central Sugarcane Research Institute exists. Further, the Indian Institute of Sugarcane Research, which is close to the option ‘A’ is situated at Raibarel, Lucknow and as such, the answer ‘A’ was also correct. 28. The answer ‘A’ was also not matched correctly, resulting in, option ‘A’ and ‘C’ both being correct and, therefore, the question was liable to be deleted. As the experts have not even dealt with the said aspect pertaining to option ‘A’ also being correct on account of the Central Sugarcane Research Institute being not situated at Coimbatore, some other sugarcane related institute being available there, the experts need to re-examine the said issue. 29. As the experts have not even dealt with the said aspect pertaining to option ‘A’ also being correct on account of the Central Sugarcane Research Institute being not situated at Coimbatore, some other sugarcane related institute being available there, the experts need to re-examine the said issue. 29. In view of the above discussion, apparently the determination made by the experts qua the question no.78 and 129 as discussed hereinbefore, require a re-look by the said Expert Committee. 30. Following the directions given in the case of Kushal Bhardwaj (supra), the respondent – Board is directed to re-send both questions no.78 and 129 as referred hereinabove to the Expert Committee for re-assessment/re-evaluation of the correct answer / plea raised by the candidates for there deletion and if after analysis based on the discussion hereinbefore and the material produced, the experts come to a conclusion that the objections raised have substance, both the questions be deleted by the Selection Board. As the Court in the case of Kushal Bhardwaj (supra) has noticed that pursuant to the publication of final answer key, final select list has been issued by the Board and appointments made, it is directed that the result of only those candidates, who have not been accorded appointment i.e. other than those who have already been selected and given appointment, be revised according to the decision of the Selection Board and fresh merit list be prepared and appointments based on the said merit list be accorded to the candidates. 31. Further, the direction given in the case of Kushal Bhardwaj (supra) pertaining to the preparation of the merit list and that the result of the selected candidates shall not be disturbed and if required holding of exercise of document verification afresh, would also be applied in the present case. 32. The Board is directed to complete the exercise as early as possible i.e. if possible along with while implementing the judgment in the case of Kushal Bhardwaj (supra). 33. Insofar as, the question no.114 is concerned, the plea raised in this regard is rejected. 34. With the above observations and directions, the writ petitions stand disposed of.