ORDER : 1. The instant petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayers : “(i) The respondent RPSC be directed at least to award the marks to the present petitioner at par with the other candidates qua 24 questions specified in the memo of the petition as awarded to the others for the same/similar answer and consequently the merit position of the petitioner be directed to be revised accordingly. (ii) It is also prayed that consequent upon the revision of the position/Rank as per above prayer the respondents be directed to give appointment to the present petitioner as against RAS proper (Appointment as RAS) with all consequential benefits from the date the respondents given the appointments to others i.e. 11.09.2017. (iii) The respondent RPSC be further directed to re-fix/re-assign the seniority of the petitioner in the RAS-2013/2018 proper and grant him all the consequential benefits follow therefrom after proper assignment of the seniority in RAS 2013/2018 at appropriate place including the seniority and financial benefits and re-fixation. (iv) The services of the petitioner as rendered by him in RACS cadre may also be added in the service tenure of the petitioner as per rules alongwith all the consequential benefits follow therefrom. (v) Or any other appropriate order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court, may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case, may also kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner.” 2. The facts in nut-shell, as pleaded in the writ petition, are that an advertisement dated 16th June, 2013 was issued by the Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short “RPSC”) for selection and appointment in Rajasthan Administrative Service and Allied Services. 3. The petitioner, being eligible to apply for the aforesaid services, appeared in the preliminary examination conducted on 26th October, 2013. 4. The petitioner has pleaded that the preliminary examination of the aforesaid services came to be cancelled on 10th July, 2014 and again a Notification was issued for conducting the preliminary examination. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that after initial postponement of preliminary examination, the same came to be conducted on 31st October, 2015. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that result of the preliminary examination was declared on 29th November, 2015 and he was amongst the successful candidates. 7. 5. The petitioner has pleaded that after initial postponement of preliminary examination, the same came to be conducted on 31st October, 2015. 6. The petitioner has pleaded that result of the preliminary examination was declared on 29th November, 2015 and he was amongst the successful candidates. 7. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent RPSC issued Notification dated 29th March, 2016 for conducting main examination and the same was to be conducted from 09th April, 2016 to 12th April, 2016. 8. The petitioner has pleaded that in the result of main examination, declared on 15th June, 2016, his name was figured out amongst the successful candidates. 9. The petitioner has pleaded that after main examination, the respondent RPSC rescheduled the dates of interview and as such, after appearing in the interview, the final result of the aforesaid examination was declared on 10th December, 2016 and the petitioner was selected for allied services i.e. Rajasthan Accounts Service. 10. The petitioner has pleaded that the respondent RPSC subsequently issued final select list and the objections, which were raised by certain candidates about totalling of their marks, were carried out and a Press Note was issued. 11. The petitioner has pleaded that the petitioner came across the Press Note for the purpose of taking answer books from the portal of RPSC, which was made available to the different candidates and as such, the petitioner obtained his own answer books as well as of certain other candidates. 12. The petitioner has pleaded that on perusing the answer books of the other candidates and after considering the relevant books in respect of the answers given by the petitioner, it became apparent that arbitrary and unreasonable assessment/evaluation was made by the evaluators of the examination. 13. The petitioner has pleaded that in some of the questions, he has been awarded ‘0’ marks or lesser marks while for the same answer, the other candidates have been awarded either full or higher marks. 14. The petitioner has pleaded that he was filing representations before RPSC since 2018 onwards, but no heed was paid to the same and as such, the petitioner, after serving a notice for demand of justice, has approached this Court. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner – Mr.Saransh Saini submitted that in para 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has given details of objections in all 4 papers of RAS Main Examination. 16. 15. Learned counsel for the petitioner – Mr.Saransh Saini submitted that in para 5 of the writ petition, the petitioner has given details of objections in all 4 papers of RAS Main Examination. 16. Learned counsel submitted that objections in all the four papers are as follows : Paper 1 Unit Section Question No. Unit 1 Part A 3 Unit 1 Part A 5 Unit 1 Part B 8 Unit 3 Part A 3 Paper 2 Unit Section Question No. Unit 1 Part A 6 Unit 2 Part A 8 Paper 3 Unit Section Question No. Unit 2 Part A 2 Unit 3 Part A 2 Unit 3 Part A 3 Unit 3 Part B 7 Unit 3 Part B 11 Paper 4 Unit Section Question No. Unit 1 Part A 7(1) Unit 1 Part A 7(3) Unit 1 Part A 7(4) Unit 1 Part A 8(7) Unit Part B 9(1) 17. Learned counsel submitted that details have been given to show to this Court that either the respondent RPSC awarded ‘0’ marks to the petitioner or awarded less marks, as compared to the other candidates, who gave similar answers. 18. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that in the English Section, the petitioner has raised his grievance in respect of the question Nos.1(b), 2(a), 2(c), 5(b), 5(c), 10(b), 10(c) and 11(5) in Unit 3 (Part A & Part B). 19. Learned counsel, while making submissions, drew attention of this Court towards certain blatant irregularities committed by RPSC, while checking the answer sheet of the petitioner. 20. Learned counsel submitted that in respect of English Section in Part A of Unit 3, there was a question No.1(b) where the candidates were to fill the blanks with the correct articles and the said question was as under : “There was ……..earthquake in Srinagar last year.” 21. Learned counsel submitted that the petitioner’s answer was article “an” and the petitioner was awarded ‘0’ marks and the other candidate, bearing Roll No.414268, had also filled the answer and written “an” as the answer and was awarded ‘1’ mark. 22. Learned counsel further submitted that the other candidate having Roll No.403523 had also filled the same answer by putting “an” in the blank space and he was also awarded ‘1’ mark. 23. 22. Learned counsel further submitted that the other candidate having Roll No.403523 had also filled the same answer by putting “an” in the blank space and he was also awarded ‘1’ mark. 23. Learned counsel has referred to question No.2(a), Unit 3 of Part A (English Section), where the petitioner was asked to fill the answer with correct preposition. The petitioner, in his answer sheet put the word “of” in between the sentence and the answer of the petitioner was treated as wrong and he was awarded ‘0’ marks. 24. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the marks, awarded to the other candidate bearing Roll No.428512, where he had also given the same answer by putting “of” and he was awarded ‘1’ mark. 25. Learned counsel has again referred to question No.2(c), Unit 3 of Part A (English Section), where the correct preposition was to be mentioned and the petitioner had filled in the blank by putting word “in” and he was awarded ‘0’ marks, while the other candidates bearing Roll Nos.428512 & 410855 respectively have also put the same answer by writing “in” and they were awarded ‘1’ mark each. 26. Learned counsel has also referred to question No.5(b), Unit 3 of Part A (English Section), where the petitioner had given answer as “few” and he was awarded ‘0’ marks and as such, the correct answer was “few” or “A few” and as such, ‘0’ marks could not have been awarded to the petitioner. 27. Learned counsel has referred to question No.5(c), Unit 3 of Part A (English Section), where appropriate Determiners was to be filled in and the petitioner has answered by writing “any” and he was awarded ‘0’ marks, while the other candidate bearing Roll No.419932 had also given the same answer i.e. “any” and he was given ‘1’ mark. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again referred to two other questions like question No.10(b) of Unit 3 of Part A (English Section) and question No.10(c) of Unit 3 of Part A (English Section), where correct answers were given by the petitioner, however, he was awarded ‘0’ marks. 29. 28. Learned counsel for the petitioner has again referred to two other questions like question No.10(b) of Unit 3 of Part A (English Section) and question No.10(c) of Unit 3 of Part A (English Section), where correct answers were given by the petitioner, however, he was awarded ‘0’ marks. 29. Learned counsel has also tried to convince this Court that in respect of the other papers, while evaluating the answer given by the petitioner, the evaluator/examiner did not award marks to the petitioner and for the same answer, different marks or more marks were awarded to the other candidates. 30. Learned counsel submitted that on account of gross negligence, non application of mind and lack of devotion to the duty by the examiner, the entire career of the petitioner has suffered, as the petitioner has been awarded only allied services and the respondent RPSC, if had given proper marks by evaluating the answer sheets of the petitioner in fair manner, merit position of the petitioner would have been much higher and he could have made better grades either in RAS or in the allied services itself. 31. Learned counsel submitted that bare perusal of the answers given by the petitioner do not require any independent assessment by this Court and there are no inferences, which are required to be drawn and as such, the illegality committed by the respondent RPSC, needs to be corrected by this Court, as grave injustice has been done to the petitioner. 32. Learned counsel submitted that though Rule 18 of the Rajasthan State and Subordinate Service (Direct Recruitment by Combined Competitive Examination) Rules, 1999 (for short “the Rules of 1999”) only permits retotalling of the marks obtained by a candidate in the Main Examination and no evaluation of the answer paper is to be done or re-examined, however, even if such Rule is applicable, the judicial scrutiny is not altogether excluded where the authorities work in such a negligent manner and material error is committed. 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, places reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.5838/2018) decided on 14th June, 2018 along with other connected appeals. 34. 33. Learned counsel for the petitioner, in support of his submission, places reliance on a judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. (Civil Appeal No.5838/2018) decided on 14th June, 2018 along with other connected appeals. 34. Learned counsel, on the strength of said judgment, submitted that the Apex Court has reiterated the principles, which were laid down in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. [ 2018(2) SCC 357 ]. 35. Learned counsel submitted that no inferential process of reasoning or a process of rationalisation is required in the present facts of the case because the respondents have not acted in a proper and required manner and this Court needs to interfere. 36. Learned counsel further submitted that the respondents, in their reply, have only pleaded that experts in their field have undertaken the entire exercise of evaluation of answer sheets. 37. Learned counsel submitted that the plea taken by the respondents that evaluation of the answer book has been done by subject specialist, as per the guidelines, cannot be a foolproof or the same cannot be said to be final, where apparent error is committed. 38. Per contra, learned counsel – Mr.MF Baig, appearing for the respondent RPSC, submitted that the present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner in the year 2021 whereas selection process of RAS and Allied Services was initiated way-back in the year 2013. 39. Learned counsel submitted that recruitment process is already over and even subsequent selections were held in the year 2016 itself and as such, the petition, filed by the petitioner, is highly belated and the same may not be entertained by this Court. 40. Learned counsel further submitted that the reply, which has been filed on behalf of the respondent RPSC, clearly gives details as in what manner the guidelines issued by the RPSC, have been followed. 41. Learned counsel submitted that the subject specialist have gone into each and every answer sheets very minutely and by adopting a common standard for all the answer books, the marks have been awarded to the different candidates, as per the answer given by them. 42. 41. Learned counsel submitted that the subject specialist have gone into each and every answer sheets very minutely and by adopting a common standard for all the answer books, the marks have been awarded to the different candidates, as per the answer given by them. 42. Learned counsel further submitted that the questions, which have been disputed by the petitioner of not giving him proper marks or giving less marks, cannot be an area of examination by this Court, as this Court is not equipped with the expert knowledge and skill to come to the conclusion that the examiner has committed any error. 43. Learned counsel further submitted that in the academic matters, it is discretion of the academician, which need to be given priority over any other opinion, framed by any other body, including the Courts. 44. Learned counsel further submitted that the issue with regard to availability of right of a candidate to ask for re-totalling/re-examination has already been considered in catena of cases by this Court as well as Apex Court. 45. Learned counsel for the respondent RPSC places reliance on a judgment passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court in SB Civil Writ Petition No.14302/2017 (Mamta Sharma Vs. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr.) decided on 29th January, 2020. 46. Learned counsel submitted that the said judgment has also been up-held by the Division Bench in DB Civil Special Appeal Writ No.140/2020 (Mamta Sharma Vs. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr.) decided on 05th February, 2021. 47. Learned counsel for the respondent also refers to another judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Sunder Vs. The State of Rajasthan & Anr. (DB Special Appeal Writ Petition No.993/2018) decided on 22nd April, 2019. 48. Learned counsel for the respondent RPSC, on the strength of the aforesaid judgments, submitted that scope of interference by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is clearly excluded and the subjective satisfaction of the evaluator has to be given priority and the Court should not form its own opinion. 49. Learned counsel also refers to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Bhanwra Ram (DB Special Appeal Writ No.399/2019) decided on 24th November, 2021 along with other connected appeals. 49. Learned counsel also refers to an order passed by the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Bhanwra Ram (DB Special Appeal Writ No.399/2019) decided on 24th November, 2021 along with other connected appeals. On the strength of said judgment, learned counsel for the respondent RPSC submitted that the directions, which were given by the Single Bench of even imposing cost was not only set aside by the Division Bench but the Division Bench has also took into account the fact of enormous applications received by RPSC from the candidates, who appear in the examination. Learned counsel submitted that the issue of filing petition belatedly, as the examination was conducted in the year 2013 and the petition was filed subsequently in the year 2021 has been dealt with by the Division Bench, which has refused to interfere in the matter. 50. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available before the Court. 51. This Court, on a bare perusal of Rule 18 of the Rules of 1999 finds that in respect of the marks, obtained by the candidates in the main examination, retotalling of marks is permitted after charging prescribed fee from the candidates, however, evaluation of the answer paper is prohibited for re-examination. 52. This Court finds that the Apex Court has considered the similar issue from time to time, where a particular statute prohibited re-examination of the answer sheets and also examined the cases where in spite of such bar, the Courts have been given power to permit re-evaluation or scrutiny where same is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process or of reasoning. 53. This Court deems it proper to quote para No.30 of the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra) for ready reference : “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. 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 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.” 54. This Court further finds that the Apex Court in the case of U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr.(supra) has reiterated the same principle and in para No.12 of the said judgment, the Apex Court reiterated that onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is correct but also that it is a glaring mistake, which is totally apparent and no inferential process of reasoning is required to show that key answer is wrong. Para No.12 of the said judgment is quoted hereunder for ready reference : “12. The law is well settled that the onus is on the candidate to not only demonstrate that the key answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake which is totally apparent and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is wrong. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. The Constitutional Courts must exercise great restraint in such matters and should be reluctant to entertain a plea challenging the correctness of the key answers. In Kanpur University case (supra), the Court recommended a system of -(1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the questions; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions.” 55. This Court finds that in the facts of the case, which were before the Apex Court since three questions were in dispute in respect of wrong process of reasoning and as such, the Court did not entertain the claim of the candidate and further found that Judges cannot be expert in all the fields and they have to exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts. 56. This Court finds that recently again, the issue with regard to re-evaluation of answer sheet was before the Apex Court in the case of Registrar General, High Court of Delhi Vs. Ravinder Singh (Special Leave Petition (C) No.3144/2023) decided on 11th July, 2023 and the Apex Court, again after considering the issue relating to re-evaluation of answer sheets, where there was a provision prohibiting re-evaluation, found that if the disputed answer required any inference or reasoning by the Court, the same was not to be considered as a material error, warranting interference in exercise of jurisdiction granted to the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India or under Article 136 of the Constitution of India by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 57. This Court has gone through the said judgment and finds that the Apex Court in the case of Registrar General, High Court of Delhi Vs. Ravinder Singh (supra) has again reiterated that the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny, if it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or a process of rationalisation and only in rare and exceptional cases that a material error has been committed and as such, the judicial scrutiny is not prohibited. Ravinder Singh (supra) has again reiterated that the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny, if it is demonstrated very clearly without any inferential process of reasoning or a process of rationalisation and only in rare and exceptional cases that a material error has been committed and as such, the judicial scrutiny is not prohibited. This Court finds that the Apex Court, in the aforesaid case was concerned with a particular question, which was challenged by a candidate of not giving him proper marks on interpretation of Trademarks Act and the Apex Court, after taking into account the correct interpretation, as taken by the evaluator, did not interfere with the order and set aside the order of the Delhi High Court. 58. On a bare perusal of the judgment relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent RPSC in the case of Mamta Sharma, as upheld by the Division Bench, this Court finds that the Single Bench though quoted the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. (supra), however, did not give any finding as whether any expert opinion was required to examine the question paper or answer sheet. 59. This Court, in the present facts of the case, finds that if the answer given by the candidate is similar and no inference or reasoning is required as the similarly situated candidate is awarded higher marks for the same question then lapse or arbitrariness is so apparent on the face of record that no reasoning is required or no application of mind by any other person is required. 60. This Court finds that though the judgment of Single Bench in the case of Mamta Sharma Vs. Secretary, Rajasthan Public Service Commission, Ajmer & Anr. (supra) has been upheld by the Division Bench, however, with due respect to the view taken by Single Bench, as upheld by Division Bench, the law on the subject is now well settled by the Apex Court and as such, in view of the judgments passed by the Apex Court in the case of U.P.P.S.C. through its Chairman & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. (supra) and Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. (supra) and Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. (supra), this Court is inclined to take a view that the petitioner has demonstrated very clearly in the present facts of the case that his answer books have not been evaluated in proper and fair manner. 61. On perusal of the judgment, relied upon by learned counsel for the respondent RPSC in the case of Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Bhanwra Ram (supra), this Court, with full sense of judicial discipline and having due regard to the view taken by the Division Bench, finds that the said judgment did not examine as whether the dispute, which was raised by a candidate by pointing out the mistake committed by the examiner, was required to be rectified or not. 62. This Court finds that the said judgment also does not prohibit the judicial scrutiny of the issue raised before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India where the glaring examples are given by a candidate that the evaluator, without due application of mind, has examined the answer books. 63. This Court, in no way may be understood to say that the examiner has acted in a mala fide manner or any motive is imputed against him. 64. This Court is only concerned with the proper evaluation of answer book by the examiners and due care is required to be taken while evaluating or examining the answer books. 65. This goes without saying that any variation of marks in competitive examination may change the entire service career of a candidate. 66. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent RPSC that petition has been filed belatedly and subsequent examinations have also been conducted, this Court finds that the petitioner, before approaching this Court, filed representations continuously before the authority and then he also served a notice for demand of justice and the petitioner, after getting information under Right to Information Act, approached this Court. Moreover, no such plea has been taken in the reply filed by the State and RPSC. 67. This Court does not accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent RPSC that since the selections have subsequently been conducted, as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 68. Moreover, no such plea has been taken in the reply filed by the State and RPSC. 67. This Court does not accept the submission of learned counsel for the respondent RPSC that since the selections have subsequently been conducted, as such, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 68. This Court finds that when there is an apparent error and lapse of duty on part of the examiner then in such a situation, the right, which accrues to the candidate, may not be defeated only on the basis of approaching this Court after the examination or subsequent examination being conducted. 69. The submission of learned counsel for the respondent RPSC that since the experts have applied their mind and this Court cannot assume the role of an expert in academic matter, this Court makes it clear that no opinion is expressed in respect of award of marks to the petitioner and only glaring mistake, which has come on record, needs to be re-examined by the subject experts. 70. Accordingly, this Court allows the present writ petition and sends the matter back to the respondent RPSC for constituting an Expert Committee of each subject, in which the petitioner has raised grievance in this petition and such Experts should not be associated with earlier evaluation of answer sheet of the petitioner. 71. The exercise of appointing the Expert Committee and evaluation of the answer sheet of the petitioner in respect of the disputed questions may be carried out within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order. 72. It is made clear that in case merit position or marks of the petitioner are upgraded, the respondents will accordingly consider the case of the petitioner for proper allotment of service either in RAS or allied services, as per his changed merit position.