ORDER : 1. Petitioners have filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to declare the answer of question No.32, 33, 38 & 40 of SET “ABCD” correct answer is **cky lkfgR;** instead of Vsyhfotu it and further direct the respondent CG Vyapam to allot the marks of the same to the petitioners. 10.2 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to delete the question No. 52, 40, 47 & 46 of SET “ABCD” it and further direct the respondent C.G. Vyapam to allot the marks of the same to the petitioners. 10.3 The Hon’ble Court my kindly be pleased to declare the answer of question No.87, 82, 80 & 81 of SET “ABCD” correct answer is “Evaluation instead of Procedure it and further direct the respondent CG Vyapam to allot the marks of the same to the petitioners. 10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 2. Facts of the case in nutshell are that pursuant to the advertisement issued by respondent No.2 for Chhattisgarh Teachers Eligibility Test 2002 (TET 2022), petitioners submitted their application forms and appeared in the examination held on 18.09.2022. Respondent No.2 declared the result of TET 2022. Respondent No.2 has also uploaded the model answer and have called objections to the model answer. Some of the aspirants who participated in the examination have raised their objection which was considered by the Committee constituted in this regard. Petitioners could not secure the minimum marks required for passing the examination and thereafter have filed this petition seeking relief as mentioned above. 3. Learned counsel for petitioners would submit that respondent No.2 after holding examination, published model answer and uploaded in the website. In the Primary (Paper -I) of C.G. TET Examination 2022, question No.32, 52 and 87 of SET-A, 33, 40, & 82 of SET-B, 38, 47 & 80 of SET-C and 40, 46 & 81 of SET-D. Question No.32, 33, 38 & 40 of SET “ABCD”, Question No. 52, 40, 47 & 46 of SET “ABCD” and question No. 87, 82, 80 & 81 of SET “ABCD” were objected. Upon going through the model answer it revealed that answers taken by respondent No.2 with respect to aforementioned questions are wrongly taken. Upon going through the model answer it revealed that answers taken by respondent No.2 with respect to aforementioned questions are wrongly taken. The action on the part of respondent No.2 is highly arbitrary. As per the book of Hindi Shikshan of Diploma in Elementary Education (D.El.Ed.) & Bhasha Hindi & Bhsha Shikshan of Pt. Sunder Lal Sharma and final answer of CTET Exam of December, 2019, some of the model answers as pointed out in the aforementioned para are not correct. Petitioners have raised objection before the respondent authorities but till date no action has been taken. Respondent-State while taking examination has a paramount duty to evolve a process which should be fair and apparent on the face of record for the candidates who are appearing in the examination. Hon’ble Supreme Court in one of the case has taken serious view and given finding in respect of the process evolved in adopting a proper and correct process of choosing the correct answer or to give correct and proper questions with appropriate answers. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Sachit Kumar Singh & Ors. Vs. The State of Jharkhand & Ors, in Civil Appeal No. 2793-98 of 2023 decided on 28.04.2023. It is contended on behalf of petitioners that upon comparing the answers which petitioners have put to question papers issued to them with model answer, got surprised that respondent No.2 has published the wrong answers. 4. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 would submit that submission of learned counsel for petitioners that respondent No.2 has taken wrong answers is absolutely wrong. Respondent No.2 is a Board constituted by the Department of Higher Education, Technical Education, Manpower Planning, Science & Technology of the Government of Chhattisgarh with an object for conducting Pre-Entrance Examinations for Medical, Ayurvedic, Engineering, Agriculture Colleges and Polytechnic or any other examination as authorized by the Government of Chhattisgarh. State of Chhattisgarh has assigned the work of conducting C.G. TET 2022 examination in accordance with rules framed by the Department of State Council of Educational Research & Training (In short “SCERT”). The examination was conducted on Optical Mark Reader Answer Sheet (in short “OMR Sheet”). After conducting examination, respondent No.2 published model answer of the respective sets of questions papers/book let in the official website of respondent No.2. The examination was conducted on Optical Mark Reader Answer Sheet (in short “OMR Sheet”). After conducting examination, respondent No.2 published model answer of the respective sets of questions papers/book let in the official website of respondent No.2. After publication of model answer, respondent No.2 called for “Claims and Objections” from participating candidates. The claim and the objection submitted by candidates were duly considered by the panel of experts of respondent No.2 and thereafter final answers were published in official website and only thereafter the results of TET 2022 examination was published. The claims and the objections submitted by aspirants were considered by the panel of experts by giving thoughtful consideration. The objections were considered by the panel of experts referring the study material and papers which is also mentioned in the report of experts. The copy of opinion given by the experts based on the objections raised by aspirants participated in the TET 2022 examination is enclosed as Annexure R-2/1. Petitioners failed to make out a case that final answer which was published is absolutely not correct and not supported with any material. If the panel of experts while considering the objections have given their thoughtful consideration referring to the study material, books, papers and others, the opinion of the experts are not to be interfered and it has to be given weightage. In support of his contention, he placed reliance upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ran Vijay Singh & Others Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Others, reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 , in case of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission, Through Its Chairman and Another Vs. Rahul Singh & Another, reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254 and two decisions of Division Bench of this Court one of which is reported in 2020 SCC OnLine Chh 2185 parties being Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board through Its Controller, Vyapam Bhawan Vs. Vikram Singh Rana & Ors., another in Writ Appeal No.165 of 2020 parties being Umang Gauraha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and other connected writ appeals, decided on 10.12.2020. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. Vikram Singh Rana & Ors., another in Writ Appeal No.165 of 2020 parties being Umang Gauraha Vs. State of Chhattisgarh and other connected writ appeals, decided on 10.12.2020. 5. I have heard learned counsel for parties and perused the documents placed on record. 6. In the writ petition, petitioners have raised objections with regard to question No.32, 52 and 87 of SET-A, 33, 40, & 82 of SET-B, 38, 47 & 80 of SET-C. Question No. 40, 46 & 81 of SET-D. Question No.32, 33, 38 & 40 of SET “ABCD”, Question No. 52, 40, 47 & 46 of SET “ABCD” and question No. 87, 82, 80 & 81 of SET “ABCD”. 7. In the case at hand after holding of examination, respondent No.2 published model answers, called for claims and objections from the participants and upon submission of objections/claims to the model answer, respondent No.2 has placed the claims and objections before the panel of experts. Panel of experts considered their objections and has been dealt with assigning the reasons as to why the answers opined by them to be correct. Copy of opinion of the experts is placed on record as Annexure R-2/1. Perusal of the expert’s opinion would show that the objections were considered by two experts, who are Assistant Professor of different colleges at Raipur. Along with reply, material relied upon by the experts is also placed on record. Petitioners have not submitted any rejoinder to the reply submitted by respondent No.2 as to why the opinion of experts is erroneous. 8. The Courts are not experts of all the subjects, therefore, once the question with model answers and the final answers are placed before the Court in a proceeding raising objection on the correctness of the answer relied upon by the examination agency, the Court are required to exercise great restraint and should be reluctant to interfere with the answers opined by the experts. Interference can only be made if it is demonstrated very clearly without any “inferential process reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” that a material error has been committed and that too only in rare or exceptional cases. The law is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to interference in like nature of the cases. Interference can only be made if it is demonstrated very clearly without any “inferential process reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” that a material error has been committed and that too only in rare or exceptional cases. The law is well settled by Hon’ble Supreme Court with regard to interference in like nature of the cases. It is onus upon the candidates not only to demonstrate that final answer is incorrect but also that it is a glaring mistake apparent and no reasoning is required to show that key answer is wrong. 9. In case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed as under :- ‘30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2 If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3 The Court should not at all re-evaluate or 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. 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. 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. 10. In case of Rahul Singh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court while taking note of decision in case of Kanpur University Vs. 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. 10. In case of Rahul Singh (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court while taking note of decision in case of Kanpur University Vs. Samir Gupta, reported in (1983) 4 SCC 309 as also the decision in case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) has observed thus :- “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 (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. 13. As far as the present case is concerned even before publishing the first list of key answers the Commission had got the key answers moderated by two expert committees. Thereafter, objections were invited and a 26 member committee was constituted to verify the objections and after this exercise the Committee recommended that 5 questions be deleted and in 2 questions, key answers be changed. It can be presumed that these Committees consisted of experts in various subjects for which the examinees were tested. Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters. Unless, the candidate demonstrates that the key answers are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic field, weigh the pros and cons of the arguments given by both sides and then come to the conclusion as to which of the answer is better or more correct.” 11. Division Bench of this Court while dealing with identical issue in case of Vikram Singh Rana (supra) has observed as under :- “15. Division Bench of this Court while dealing with identical issue in case of Vikram Singh Rana (supra) has observed as under :- “15. The above questions and answers, as considered and opined by the Expert Committee, have been referred to by this Court only to point out that the Petitioners have miserably failed to demonstrate the genuineness of their objections before the writ Court, which was essential, in view of the ruling rendered by the Apex Court in Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra), before any relief was granted. There is absolutely no challenge as to the competence of the Expert Committee, constituted by the Appellant-Board or as to any instance of mala fides. This being the position, the idea of the writ petitioners with reference to the way in which it has been painted in some of the textbooks and sought to be relied on by them to suit to their stand cannot be a ground to tilt the balance in respect of the opinion given by the Expert Committee, for the reasons as given in Annexure-A/5. The course of action pursued by the Appellant-Board is demonstrated as transparent in all respects. The questions were framed by the Experts and after completion of the Examination, the Model Answers were published as per Annexure-A/3, giving a chance to the candidates to submit the objections, if any. It was after considering all the objections, that the opinion was formed by the Expert Committee, leading to finalization of the answers as per Annexure-A/4 and the publication of merit list. This being the position, the 'decision making process' pursued by the Appellant-Board is quite in order and there is no scope for interference in this regard. 12. In case of Umang Gauraha (supra), Division Bench of this Court taking note of decision in case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and Rahul Singh (Supra) has observed thus :- “21. As mentioned already, there is no dispute with regard to the course and events insofar as after conducing the examination, the model answers were published by the Board inviting objections from the interested participants. The objections obtained were forwarded and subjected to scrutiny by the Expert Committee. As mentioned already, there is no dispute with regard to the course and events insofar as after conducing the examination, the model answers were published by the Board inviting objections from the interested participants. The objections obtained were forwarded and subjected to scrutiny by the Expert Committee. Considering the objections, the Expert Committee found that some questions were liable to be deleted because of the defects either in the questions or the answers and in respect of some other questions, the model answers were noted as required to be corrected. It was on the basis of the said opinion of the Experts that the final answer key was published by the Board, followed by further steps. This clearly shows that the course pursued by the Respondent-Board was quite transparent in all respects and it cannot be held as arbitrary, malafide or unreasonable in any manner.” 13. If the facts of the present case is considered in light of the aforementioned decision, it is apparent that respondent No.2 immediately after conducting examination has published model answer called claims and objections from the participating candidates on the model answer and only thereafter the final answer was published based on the opinion of the experts and only thereafter results were declared. The course pursued by respondent No.2 clearly shows that the procedure adopted was transparent and therefore, it can not be said that the action pursued by respondent No.2 is arbitrary, malafide or unreasonable in any manner. The Court has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academicians and once the objections were considered by the panel of experts interference of the Court in the academic matters is not permissible unless it is proved that the mistake pointed out is glaring mistake and is apparent which in the facts of the case is not appearing. Petitioners have not challenged the competency of the experts or raised and established the ground of any malafides. The Committee has published the model answer, invited objections and the model answer and objections were placed before the panel of experts for their opinion. Panel of experts after considering the issue relying upon the material submitted their opinion. Only because the opinion of experts not suits the petitioners in the facts of the case would not be a ground for interference. 14. Panel of experts after considering the issue relying upon the material submitted their opinion. Only because the opinion of experts not suits the petitioners in the facts of the case would not be a ground for interference. 14. The decision relied upon by the learned counsel for petitioner is on different facts of the case. In the said decision, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has remitted back the case to the High Court leaving open for the Division Bench to call for the experts opinion on the question of which answers were objected. 15. For the forgoing discussions made here-in-above, I do not find any merits in this petition, which is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.