JUDGMENT : 1. The Petitioner has filed this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India feeling aggrieved by the improper procedure in respect of deleting question or not deleting the improper question or having the correct given options, for the written examination conducted for the post of Naib Tahsildar to be filled from Revenue Inspector/Patwari, which was held on 20.07.2014. 2. Brief facts of the case, as projected by the Petitioner, are that an advertisement No.F-2-61/Saat-2/2007, Raipur Dated 04.03.2014 (Annexure P/1) was published for 57 posts of Naib Tahsildar in which 28 posts are to be filled from Revenue Inspectors & Patwari Cadre and 20 from Clerks Cadre. The date of written examination was fixed for 20.07.2014. The Petitioner has duly appeared in the written examination and thereafter the model answer were declared vide dated 31.07.2014 by the Respondent Controller, Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board (in short Vyapam). The Petitioner has got Set-B (Annexure P/2) and in respect of question No.28, which is quoted below for ready reference: "28. Who among the following was the first recipient of Padmashri honour of this state? (A) Pt. Mukutdhar Pandey (B) Dr. Mahadev Prasad Pandey (C) John Martin Nelson (D) Habib Tanveer" 3. The Petitioner has put/chosen the answer as Pandit Mukutdhar Pandey and in the model answer (Annexure P/3) also the Vyapam has mentioned the answer of question No.28 as "A". An objection- claim/ Dawa-Apatties were invited upto 06.08.2014. Since the Petitioner was not aggrieved by the answer of question No.28, has not moved any objection for the same. Thereafter, final answers of Set-B was issued vide dated 04.02.2015 (Annexure P/4), wherein the question No.28 has been deleted. According to the Petitioner, it is not the case that the said question is the disputed or incorrect one or may have two or more than two different answers & the answers have been given incorrect, as there is no quarrel that the first person who has got "Padmashree' is Pandit Mukutdhar Pandey, as he has got the same in year 1976. The same also proves from the official website of the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology, as the list has been published (Annexure P/5) showing the total names of the persons who have got 'Padmashree' having total names in which the name at serial No.7 Pandit Mukutdhar Pandey has been shown. The same also proves from the official website of the Directorate of Culture & Archaeology, as the list has been published (Annexure P/5) showing the total names of the persons who have got 'Padmashree' having total names in which the name at serial No.7 Pandit Mukutdhar Pandey has been shown. Thereafter the results (Annexure P/6) were declared and the Petitioner got 118.862 marks and declared as 'not eligible'. Further, in respect of question No.50 of Set-B, which is reproduced herein below for ready reference: 50. Who is the Governor of this State? (A) Shekhar Dutt (B) Ram Naresh Yadav (C) E.S.L. Narsimhan (D) None of the above" 4. The answer to the above question opted by the Petitioner is ‘A’ (Shekher Dutt), but in the model answer & the final answer, the Vyapam has given the answer of question No.50 as 'B' "Ram Naresh Yadava". According to the Petitioner, the said question should have been deleted for the reason that the question does not say that who is the present Governor of the State, but only asked who is the governor of the State and the answer (A), (B), (C) to question No.50 all are correct for the reason that the option (A) Shekher Dutt and option (C) E.S.L. Narsimhan both were the Governor of the State and had it been the question that who is the present governor of this State, then the answer should have been (B) the Ram Naresh Yadav', therefore, this question ought to have been deleted and general marking should have been done of this question. Thereafter, the Petitioner came to know that in respect of question No.68 of SET-B (General Knowledge) that, laLd`fr dk fo'ys"k.k gS%&^^ , in which the Respondent Vyapam has given the options as (C) laLd`frd the relevant documents,", but as per the Petitioner and the correct answer is (D) lkWLd`frd . For this, the Petitioner has also submitted the representation-cum-objection (Annexure P/7) with the relevant document (Annexure P/8) showing option “D” as correct answer before the Vyapam. Further, in respect of question No.55 of SET- B (General Knowledge) ftlds fo”k; es dqN dgk tkrk gS] mls D;k dgk tkrk gS\ ", the Vyapam in the model answer has chosen the answer as "(C) mnns';^^ , however, in the final answer, the same has been changed as "(D) fo/ks;^^ . Further, in respect of question No.55 of SET- B (General Knowledge) ftlds fo”k; es dqN dgk tkrk gS] mls D;k dgk tkrk gS\ ", the Vyapam in the model answer has chosen the answer as "(C) mnns';^^ , however, in the final answer, the same has been changed as "(D) fo/ks;^^ . Therefore, for this question the Petitioner has earlier not made an objection but after coming to know about this, the Petitioner has submitted a representation-cum-objection, thereby giving the proof (Annexure P/9). According to the Petitioner, this Hon'ble Court has also come across with identical issue in writ petitions (Annexure P/10), wherein certain directions have been issued to scrutinize the answer by Highly Qualified Experts. Hence, the Petitioner has filed this petition seeking following relief (s) :- “10.1.Direct the Respondent authorities to form an Independent Expert Committee to scrutinize & to reconsider the correct answer of question No.55 of Set-B (General Knowledge) 10.2 Direct the Respondent authorities to form an Independent Expert Committee to scrutinize & to reconsider the correct answer of question No.68 of Set-B (General Knowledge). 10.3 Direct the Respondent Vyapam to form an Independent Expert Committee and consider to delete the question No.50 and provide the general/pro-rata marks to the candidates. 10.4 Direct the Respondent State to consider the candidature of the Petitioner for appointment on the post of Naib Tahsildar. 10.5 Grant any other relief(s)/writ (s), order (s) in favour of the Petitioner, which the Hon’ble Court deemed fit & just in the facts & circumstances of the case, including awarding of the costs to the Petitioner.” 5. Learned counsel for the Petitioner submits that the Petitioner has duly appeared in the written examination and after declaration of model answers on 31.07.2014 by the Respondent Controller, objections were invited up to 06.08.2014 and when final answer of Set-B was issued on 04.02.2015, the Petitioner surprised to know that question No.28 has been deleted. Thereafter, the results were declared and the Petitioner got 118.862 marks and declared as ‘not eligible’. Learned counsel further submits that had it been a case that the correct question and the correct answer not been deleted, the Petitioner might have been selected and declared eligible. Subsequently, when the Petitioner came to know about discrepancy of question No.68 of Set-B, he filed representation-cum-objection with the relevant document showing ‘D’ as correct answer before Vyapam. Learned counsel further submits that had it been a case that the correct question and the correct answer not been deleted, the Petitioner might have been selected and declared eligible. Subsequently, when the Petitioner came to know about discrepancy of question No.68 of Set-B, he filed representation-cum-objection with the relevant document showing ‘D’ as correct answer before Vyapam. Likewise, with regard to question No.55 of Set-B, the Petitioner has submitted a representation-cum-objection. Learned counsel also submits that earlier this Court entertained in identical matter wherein direction has been issued to scrutinize the answer by Highly Qualified Experts, as such, this petition is also deserves to be allowed. 6. Reliance is placed on the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors. reported in (2013) 4 SCC 690 . 7. Learned counsel for State/Respondent No.1 strongly opposed the prayer of the Petitioner and submits that the instant petition is not maintainable and liable to be dismissed on sole count of non-joinder of necessary party as pursuance of the advertisement dated 04.03.2014, the appointment orders dated 24.06.2015 (Annexure R/1) have been issued by which as many as 51 persons from Revenue Inspector/Patwari cadre and from clerical services cadre have been appointed as Naib Tahsildar. Learned counsel further submits that appointments have been made pursuance of the advertisement dated 04.03.2014 and therefore, the aforesaid 51 selected/appointed candidates are necessary party for fair adjudication of the instant petition, which the Petitioner has not made/ arrayed them as party in the array of Respondents in the instant petition. Learned counsel also submits that in the instant case, by advertisement dated 04.03.2014, online applications were invited for filling up total 57 vacant posts of Naib Tahsildar upto 23.03.2014 and in response to which, the Petitioner along with other candidates applied for the aforesaid post by submitting online application. Thereafter, on 20.07.2014, a written examination was conducted by the Respondent No.2 in which the Petitioner duly appeared. On 31.07.2014, the Respondent No.2 published the model answer on its web-site by inviting objections up to 06.08.2014 and after deciding the objections/claim, on 04.02.2015 the final model answer was published by the Respondent No.2 and based upon the aforesaid final model answer, the result of the examination was declared on 11.02.2015 and published in the official web-site. On 31.07.2014, the Respondent No.2 published the model answer on its web-site by inviting objections up to 06.08.2014 and after deciding the objections/claim, on 04.02.2015 the final model answer was published by the Respondent No.2 and based upon the aforesaid final model answer, the result of the examination was declared on 11.02.2015 and published in the official web-site. Thereafter, on 23.02.2015, the Respondent No.2 changed the result and the revised final answer was published/notified in the official website, as such, the instant petition being without any merit is liable to be dismissed. 8. Learned counsel for Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 strongly opposed the prayer of the Petitioner and submits that the instant petition is not maintainable as the Petitioner has not made newly selected candidates as party, as such, this petition is liable to be dismissed. 9. Reliance is placed on the decision dated 10.12.2020 passed in W.A. No. 165/2020 and other connected matters [Umang Gauraha Vs. State of C.G. & others], decision dated 06.03.2020 passed in W.A. No.108/2020 [Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board Vs. Vikram Singh Rana & Ors.] and decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission & Anr. Vs. Rahul Singh & Anr. reported in (2018) 7 SCC 254 & Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 . 10. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 11. It is clear from the pleading and documents filed by the Petitioner that the Petitioner mainly objected the question and model answer of the examination. 12. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Rahul Singh (supra) held in para 12 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 case2, the Court recommended a system of : (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the question; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions. 13. In Kanpur University case2, the Court recommended a system of : (1) moderation; (2) avoiding ambiguity in the question; (3) prompt decisions be taken to exclude suspected questions and no marks be assigned to such questions. 13. Further in the matter of Ran Vijay (supra), Hon’ble Apex Court held in para 30 as under :- “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusion. 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 scrutinise 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.” 14. This High Court also in W.A. No.165/2020 (supra) after discussing various decisions of Hon’ble Apex Court, observed in para 21 as under :- “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. 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. 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.” 15. Further, this High Court in W.A. No. 108/2020 [Chhattisgarh Professional Examination] (supra), held in para 16 as under :- “16. The grievance is only with regard to the deletion of 18 questions and nothing else. By virtue of the deletion of 18 questions, which were found as not correct or sustainable because of ambiguity or due to availability of more answers or having been framed wrongly without giving proper answer, the marks available in respect of such 18 questions (one mark each) have been re-distributed to the remaining 132 questions (out of total of 150) as per the formula stipulated in this regard. Al the candidates, who participated in the Examination, are neither ‘beneficiary’ or ‘not a loser’ in any manner and hence there cannot be any valid or sustainable grievance or cause of action for the writ Petitioners. That apart, the writ Petitioners cannot contend or insist that the question paper should carry a minimum of 150 questions always. No provision of law or precedent is brought to the notice of this Court that, if the multiple choice questions get reduced (from 150 to 132 in the instance case, with equitable distribution of marks to all the candidates in respect of remaining questions), it will vitiate the exercise. No legally sustainable cause of action has been substantiated by the writ Petitioners and therefore, the interference made by the learned Single Judge, upsetting the selection process and widening the scope is not correct or sustainable, which requires to be interdicted.” 16. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner’s grievance is only with regard to the deletion of question and some model answers. It is also clear that the Respondent authorities published the model answer and invited objection from the interested participants. The objections obtained were forwarded and subjected to scrutiny by the Expert Committee. Thus, it is clear that the Petitioner’s grievance is only with regard to the deletion of question and some model answers. It is also clear that the Respondent authorities published the model answer and invited objection 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. Thus, it is clear that the course pursued by the Respondents appears quite transparent in all respects and it cannot be held as arbitrary, malafide or unreasonable in any manner. 17. Considering the above legal observation made by the Hon’ble Apex Court and this Court in above referred respective decisions and facts and circumstances of the case, this petition being without any merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.