JUDGMENT : SANDEEP V. MARNE, J. 1. In these Petitions, Petitioners assail various orders passed by the Maharashtra Administrative Tribunal, Mumbai (Tribunal), in Original Applications instituted by them questioning the correctness of answer key/revised answer key in respect of several questions in preliminary examination conducted by the Maharashtra Public Service Commission (MPSC) for State Civil Services Examination, 2022. 2. For some of the Petitioners, this is the second round of litigation. In Writ Petitions Nos.15938 of 2022 and 368 of 2023, the Tribunal had proceeded to dismiss and Original Applications by Applicants therein by the judgment and order dated November 24, 2022. They had questioned revised answer key to question Nos.48, 20, 89 before the Tribunal. The Presenting Officer appearing for the State Government made a statement before the Tribunal that question No.48 was deleted by the MPSC and on that count, the Tribunal proceed to ignore the challenge to the revised answer key to question No.48. When Tribunal’s order was questioned before this Court in Writ Petition no.14904 of 2022, the correct position came to light on account of statement made by counsel for MPSC before this Court that question no.48 was not deleted. This Court therefore by its order dated December 8th 2022, set aside order dated November 24, 2022 and remanded Original Application No.1175 of 2022 for fresh decision. Similarly, Original Application No.1150 of 2022 was also remanded back on similar grounds by order dated 9th December, 2022 passed in Writ Petition No.15246 of 2022. In similar manner, Original Application No.1145 of 2022 was also remanded by this Court by its order dated December 21, 2022 passed in Writ Petition No.1555 of 2022. The Tribunal proceeded to decide merits of the challenge raised to the revised answer key to question no. 48 and accepting the expert’s opinion, dismissed Original Application Nos.1145 of 2022, 1150 of 2022, 1175 of 2022 by common judgment and order dated December 15, 2022. 3. On similar lines, several other candidates filed Original Application Nos.1288 of 2022, 1266 of 2022, 1267 of 2022, 1271 of 2022 questioning answer key/revised answer key in respect of various other questions which have also been dismissed by the Tribunal. The exact proceedings filed by various Petitioners before us can be tabulated as under:- Sr. No WP Nos. 3. On similar lines, several other candidates filed Original Application Nos.1288 of 2022, 1266 of 2022, 1267 of 2022, 1271 of 2022 questioning answer key/revised answer key in respect of various other questions which have also been dismissed by the Tribunal. The exact proceedings filed by various Petitioners before us can be tabulated as under:- Sr. No WP Nos. Petitioner’s name Details of OA First order in OAs Details of earlier WPs Impugn- ed dated in OAs Disputed Question Nos. 1 15938 of 2022 Darasing Pawar 1175 of 2022 O.A. Filed on 22.11.22 24/11/22 Wp No. 14904/ 2022 08.12.22 15.12.22 48 2 368 of 2023 Bharat Solanke 1150 of 2022 24/11/22 Wp No. 14904/ 2022 08.12.22 15.12.22 48, 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 42, 76, 68 and 89 3 1070 of 2023 Sanjay Khandare 1145 of 2022 24/11/22 Wp No.1555 /2022 21.12.22 03.01.23 48, 89, 90 4 587 of 2023 Kunal Bhavsar 1145 of 2022 24/11/22 WpNo. 15757/2022 21.12.22 03.01.23 48 5 9 of 2023 Sankolkumar Tarhal 1288 of 2022 O.A. filed on 16.12.22 22.12.22 48 6 1071 of 2023 Ganesh Khedkar 1266 of 2022 03.01.23 48, 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 89 and 42 7 1072 of 2023 Sachidanand Tekam 1267 of 2022 03.01.23 48, 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 76, 68, 89 and 42 8 448 of 2023 Vishal Dhanage (O.A. Filed on 15.12.22) 19.12.22 48 4. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners. Mr. Gite, the learned counsel confined his argument only to correctness of the revised answer key to question no.48. Mr. Sarode on the other hand, has questioned the correctness of answer key/revised answer key in respect of several other question Nos. 48, 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 42, 76, 68, 89. However, he has conceded to the position that question No.48 has ultimately been deleted. Mr. Dere, the learned counsel appearing for Petitioners has also made submissions on correctness of answer key in respect of question No.89. The other learned counsels have adopted the submissions advanced by Mr. Gite, Mr. Sarode and Mr. Dere. 5. The learned counsels appearing for Petitioners have taken us through various text books and other material in order to demonstrate as to how the answers given by their respective clients were correct and how the answers in the answer key/ revised answer key of the MPSC are erroneous. 6. Mr. Gite, Mr. Sarode and Mr. Dere. 5. The learned counsels appearing for Petitioners have taken us through various text books and other material in order to demonstrate as to how the answers given by their respective clients were correct and how the answers in the answer key/ revised answer key of the MPSC are erroneous. 6. Mr. Kumbhakoni, the learned senior advocate appearing for the MPSC has resisted the Petitions. He would submit that this Court should confined itself only to the correctness of answer to question No.48 as Petitioners are now estoped from questioning correctness of answer key in respect of other questions. This submission of Mr. Kumbhakoni is referable to orders passed by this Court on December 8, 22; December 9, 2022 and December 21, 2022 remanding the respective Original Applications only in respect of answer key to question No.48. Mr. Kumbhakoni has also taken us through the various text books and other material to demonstrate as to how the revised key to question no.48 is correct. He has place reliance on judgment of Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh Versus State of Utter Pradesh And Other, (2018) 2 SCC 357 in support of his contention that the academic matters are required to be left to the academicians by presuming correctness of the key answers and that even if doubt exists, benefit should go to examination authority rather than to the candidate. 7. In rejoinder, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioners have countered the submissions made on behalf of the MPSC about restricting the scope of the present Petitions to question No.48 only. It is submitted that this Court has not determined the merits of issue of correctness of answers to question Nos. 20 and 89 while remanding the Original Applications. It is further submitted that in respect of the other questions not covered by the orders of this Court dated December 8, 22; December 9, 2022 and December 21, 2022, there is no question of scope of those Petitions being restricted only to question No.48. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for rival parties and have perused records of the case as well as various material placed before us. 8. We have heard the learned counsel appearing for rival parties and have perused records of the case as well as various material placed before us. While the issue of correctness of answer key in respect of other questions is also raised in the present Petitions, the main thrust and common issue involved in all Petitions is about correctness of answer key in respect of question No.48. We therefore first proceed to deal with the issue relating to question No.48. 9. Question No.48 in the preliminary examination reads as under; “48. Pituitary gland in endocrine gland connected to hypothalamus at the base of the brain. It secretes many hormones. (a) It is called as master endocrine gland. (b) Its anterior part is neurohypophysis and posterior is adenohypophysis (c) Oxytocin and Vasopressin are secreted by posterior pituitary. (d) STH, TSH, ACTH are secreted by adenohypophysis. Which of the statements given above is/are correct? (1) (a), (c) and (d) (2) Only (a) and (c) (3) Only (d) (4) Only (b) and (d)” It is undisputed that in the first answer key, option No. (1) was held to be the correct answer to question No.48. However, in the revised answer key, option No. (2) is held to be the correct answer. Thus, the entire issue revolves around the correctness as to the suggestion made in option No.(d) which reads thus; “(d) STH, TSH, ACTH are secreted by adenohypophysis.” There appears to be no dispute about secretion of TSH and ACTH by adenohypophysis. It is secretion of STH which is the hotbed of controversy before us. While Petitioners have made strenuous efforts to demonstrate that STH is secreted by adenohypophysis, MPSC has attempted to demonstrate that STH is not secreted by adenohypophysis. 10. In the above manner, the entire controversy relating to correctness of answer key to question No.48 is narrowed down to issue as to whether STH is secreted by adenohypophysis or not. Here again, there appears to be some degree of unanimity on aspect that adenohypophysis is the large lobe of the pituitary gland. Petitioners submit that STH is secreted by pituitary gland, of which adenohypophysis is a part. The MPSC on the other hand has contended STH secreted by hypothalamus, which is a part of brain and which does not form part of pituitary gland. Petitioners submit that STH is secreted by pituitary gland, of which adenohypophysis is a part. The MPSC on the other hand has contended STH secreted by hypothalamus, which is a part of brain and which does not form part of pituitary gland. Resultantly, MPSC contends that STH is not secreted by adenohypophysis and that therefore the suggestion given in option ‘d’ is erroneous. 11. Since we have been taken through number of text books and other material to demonstrate the correctness of respective assertions by the rival parties and since the issue involves the use of complex biological terms, we have called upon both sides to give their respective stand in a short notes. Accordingly, the exact stand about secretion of STH taken before us by the rival parties as refected in their short notes is as under: Stand of Petitioners “STH, TSH, ACTH are secreted by adenohypophysis 1. Anterior part of Pituitary gland is also known as adenohypophysis 2. STH (also known as Growth Hormone) TSH, ACTH are secreted by anterior part of Pituitary gland (adenohypophysis).” Stand of the MPSC “None of the organs in the human body, including various glands, such as ‘Pituitary gland’, function on their own. Requisite instructions are received by such glands in response to which they function. One of the important functions of various glands of human body is to secrete hormones. ‘Hormones’ are non-nutrient chemicals, which act as itercellular messengers. Two types of instructions are received by glands. One re positive in nature and are generally known as ‘tropic’/‘tropin’, which word has its origin in the Greek work ‘trophos’ meaning ‘nurish’. Other are inhibitory i.e. negative in nature known as ‘statin’. To understand correct answer of Question No.48, one has to not only study the functions & operations of ‘Pituitary gland’ but also that part of the brain, which controls the functioning of ‘Pituitary gland’. This part of brain is known as ‘Hypothalamus’. The ‘Pituitary gland’ has two lobes i.e. two parts, Anterior and Posterior. Anterior part is known as Adenohypothysis, which is the subject matter of Question No.48. The Posterior part of ‘Pituitary gland’ is controlled by ‘Hypothalamus’ through nerves and not by way of Hormones. This part of brain is known as ‘Hypothalamus’. The ‘Pituitary gland’ has two lobes i.e. two parts, Anterior and Posterior. Anterior part is known as Adenohypothysis, which is the subject matter of Question No.48. The Posterior part of ‘Pituitary gland’ is controlled by ‘Hypothalamus’ through nerves and not by way of Hormones. Whereas, the Anterior part of the ‘Pituitary gland’ also known as Adenohypothysis, (which is the subject matter of Question No.48) is controlled by ‘Hypothalamus’ through hormones, which work as messengers directing the ‘Pituitary gland’ either to secrete further hormones or to stop secreting such hormones. The major portion of Adenohypophysis comprises of special cells called ‘Somatotrophs’. This part received hormones secreted by ‘Hypothalamus’ and in terms thereof this parts secrets further hormones. Somatotropic hormone (STH) is the hormone secreted by ‘Hypothalamus’ & contains positive instructions as a result of which the Somatotrophs Cells from ‘Pituitary gland’ secrete hormones that are known as ‘Growth Hormones’ (GH). The Somatostatin hormones secreted by ‘hypothalamus’ issue negative instructions to Somatotrophs to stop secreting GH. Thus, it is clear that STH is not secreted by any part of ‘Pituitary gland’. STH is secreted by ‘Hypothalamus’. When STH is secreted by ‘hypothalamus’, and not by ‘Pituitary gland’, reaches anterior lobe of ‘Pituitary gland’ (Adenohypophysis), the Adenohypophysis is turn secrets GJ (not STH). Thus, it is incorrect to say that STH is secreted by any parts of pituitary gland, including Adenohypophysis. The STH is secreted by ‘hypoythalamus’. The hormone which is secreted by anterior lobe of ‘Pituitary gland’ (adenohypothysis) is GH and not STH. Therefore, the statement (D) given for answering question No.48 containing STH is incorrect. The other two ingredients mentioned in the statement (D) viz. TSH and ACTH are correct, as these hormones are secreted by anterior portion of ‘Pituitary gland’ (Adenohypophysis). However as stated hereinabove STH is not secreted by Adenohypophysis. Resultantly, statement (D) is incorrect.” 12. Lengthy submissions made before us by counsels appearing for rival parties as well as the stand taken in written notes submitted before us, leaves no doubt in our mind that the controversy about secretion of STH either by adenohypophysis forming part of pituitary gland or by hypothalamus not forming part of pituitary gland cannot be solved except by undertaking inferential process and detailed reasoning. It is no doubt a complex issue, which can ideally be decided only by experts on the subject. It is no doubt a complex issue, which can ideally be decided only by experts on the subject. While we have attempted to comprehend the complex biological terms used in various text books and process of secretion of various hormones by different parts of the body, we are not in a position to form a concrete opinion as to whether STH is indeed secreted by adenohypophysis, which admittedly is a part of pituitary gland. 13. The revised answer key has been prepared by Dr. Snehal Donde having 29 years of teaching, research and administrative related exercise and she has been functioning as Dean, Administrative Affair of the Bhaktivedanta Research Centre at ISKCON GEV, Manor Palghar (MS). Her resume is placed before us by MPSC to demonstrate her expertise in the subject. The material used by her for arriving at her conclusion about incorrectness of suggestion in option no. “(d)” is also placed before us. 14. In the light of position emerging before us, it would be appropriate to examine the scope of judicial review to be exercised by this Court in the matter of correctness of answer key. In Ran Vijay Singh (supra), the Apex Court has held as under; “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; 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. 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. 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.” 15. The judgment in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) is followed by the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Chairman and anr. Versus Rahul Singh and another, (2018) 7 SCC 254 in which the Apex Court has held as under; “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. In Kanpur University case, 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.” 16. In Kanpur University case, 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.” 16. Thus, it is a well settled law that the scope of judicial review by this Court in the matter of correctness of answer key is extremely narrow. Unless a glaring mistake totally apparent which does not require inferential process or reasoning is demonstrated, the constitutional courts would exercise great restraint in such matters involving correctness of the key answer. 17. In the present case, despite hearing lengthy submissions made on behalf of Petitioners, we are not able to arrive at a concrete conclusion that there is any glaring mistake committed by the MPSC in the revised answer key to question no.48. On the contrary, submissions made on behalf of the MPSC do indicate possibility of STH being secreted by hypothalamus, which admittedly is not a part of Pituitary gland. Since we are not experts in the subject, we do not express any final opinion on this aspect. Suffice it to state that no glaring mistake has been pointed out by Petitioners in the revised answer key to question No.48. We are therefore unable to exercise our power of judicial review to hold that the revised answer key to question No.48 is erroneous. 18. In respect of correctness of answer key to various other questions viz. Question Nos. 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 76, 68, 89, we have heard Mr. Sarode, Mr. Dere at length on each of these questions. As observed above, Mr. Kumbhakoni has raised objection about permissibility to go into the issue relating to question Nos. 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 76, 68, 89 by this Court on account of the remand order being restricted only to question No.48. However, we propose to ignore the said objection as merits involved in respect of other questions are not determined by this Court. Also, several other Petitions are not governed by the remand order. Therefore, instead of labouring more on issue of permissibility to go into the merits of other questions, we have heard Mr. Sarode and Mr. Dere with regard to correctness of key answer to those questions as well. 19. As done in respect of Q. 48, we could have recorded submissions of Mr. Sarode and Mr. Therefore, instead of labouring more on issue of permissibility to go into the merits of other questions, we have heard Mr. Sarode and Mr. Dere with regard to correctness of key answer to those questions as well. 19. As done in respect of Q. 48, we could have recorded submissions of Mr. Sarode and Mr. Dere to correctness of key answer to each of question Nos. 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 76, 68, 89 and our findings thereon at the risk of burdening the length of this judgment. We however restrain ourselves from doing so. Also of relevance is the fact that Petitioners in various other Petitions are at loggerhead with clients of Mr. Gite and Mr. Dere. They firmly believe that the answer key/revised answer key to Q. Nos. 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 76, 68, 89 is correct. They have restricted their challenge to question No.48 only and they do not have any grievance with regard to answer key/revised answer key in respect of question Nos. 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 76, 68, 89. In fact, if the contentions of Mr. Sarode and Mr. Dere are to be accepted, marks secured by Petitioners represented by Mr. Gite might be reduced. Nevertheless, with a view to examine whether there exist any glaring error we have heard submissions of Mr. Sarode and Mr. Dere on correctness of key answer to 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 76, 68, 89. Mr. Kumbhakoni has placed on record material to demonstrate correctness of key answers to some of these questions. Having heard the earned counsels at length, we are not able to record a finding that there is any glaring mistake in answer key/ revised answer key to question Nos. 45, 20, 18, 34, 16, 76, 68, 89. 20. Though prohibited by the Apex Court, we did embark upon process of inference and reasoning to find out as to whether any glaring error could be pointed out by Petitioners in respect of answer key/revised key to question No.48 and to other questions. We are satisfied that there is no such glaring error. 21. Even if the contentions raised by the petitioners were to be accepted, at the highest it could be said that Petitioners have been able to create a doubt in the mind of this Court about correctness of the answer key/revised answer key to question No.48 and other questions. We are satisfied that there is no such glaring error. 21. Even if the contentions raised by the petitioners were to be accepted, at the highest it could be said that Petitioners have been able to create a doubt in the mind of this Court about correctness of the answer key/revised answer key to question No.48 and other questions. However, as held by the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) in the event of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority and not be the candidates. Thus, even on creation of doubt in the mind of this Court, petitioners cannot succeeded in the present Petitions. 22. In the result, we are of the view that no case is made out by Petitioners for interference of this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India. There is no error committed by the Tribunal in passing the impugned judgments and orders. Writ Petitions are devoid of merits Consequently they are dismissed without any order as to costs.