JUDGMENT : DEEPAK ROSHAN, J. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner for the following reliefs: (i) For a direction upon the Respondent Authorities to hold and declare that the answers of Question ID No. 170482 and 170440 in the subject of economies opted by the petitioner is correct in view of the fact that the correct answers as provided in the Text book reference H.L. Ahuja and text book of M.L. Jhingan, B.K Jingen namely Micro Economics which runs in Ranchi University for B.A and M.A classes. Due to this reason, the petitioner loses 4 marks (each question carries 2 marks) and was not selected for document verification in the examination of P.GT 2023. The aforesaid examination of the Petitioner was conducted on 08.09.2023 in preview of P.G.T Examination having its advertisement no.02/2023. (ii) For a further direction upon the Respondent Authorities to take appropriate measures regarding making correction of the markings given for two questions being Question ID No. 170482 and 170440 and allocation of those marks in favour of the petitioner and publish the revised result after making correction in the answer of the two aforesaid question (which carries 4 marks). 2. The brief facts of the case as per the pleadings lie in a narrow compass. Jharkhand Staff Selection Commission (in short “JSSC”) issued an Advertisement being Advertisement no. 02/2023, wherein it has been indicated that P.G.T Teacher for 11 subjects are to be selected out of them regular vacancy under Economics Subject was 167 seats out of which 14 seats were reserved for EBC-1 and 1 seat was reserved for EBC-1 women (through horizontal reservation) and selection process was to be conducted through examination. Petitioner applied for P.G.T Teacher in Economics in EBC-I category. After examination, master key was issued by JSCC. The Total no. of questions were 150 and according to master key, 116 answers of the Petitioner were correct. 3. According to the petitioner, the answer of the Question I.D no. 170482 was given wrong by the Respondent in the master key. Thereafter, the petitioner approached for correction of the answer of the aforementioned question by giving her representation through Online as well as Offline mode on 08.12.2023. 3. According to the petitioner, the answer of the Question I.D no. 170482 was given wrong by the Respondent in the master key. Thereafter, the petitioner approached for correction of the answer of the aforementioned question by giving her representation through Online as well as Offline mode on 08.12.2023. The answer of said question was not corrected when the answer key was published for the 2 nd and 3 rd time; however, when the Respondent-JSSC issued the answer key for the 4th time indicating therein that one answer of question being I.D No. 170440 has been changed which was considered as correct answer in prior published answer key, response key and master key examined by 3 different committee. Another representation was made by the Petitioner regarding her 2-right answer for question I.D no. 170482 and 170440 on dated 05.01.2024, but no action was taken by Respondent-Authority. The Respondent-Authority did not consider the representation made by the petitioner and published the result on 09.03.2024 for document verification without making correction of the answers of the petitioner, which has compelled the petitioner to move this Court by filing this writ application. 4. Learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that in respect of Question Id No. 170440 three times by three different expert committee viewed that the said answer of the Petitioner as correct and then agency issued a Mail to JSSC indicting therein there will not be any change in the subject of economics including Physics, Chemistry, etc. but they changed the answer of question ID no. 170440 in arbitrary manner and the other question being question ID No. 170482 supplied its one of the answer by the respondent but three options of the answer of the said question are correct as per text book of H.L. Ahuja and B.K. Jhingan, which are annexed with this writ petition. He further submits that Respondent No.2-JSSC never denied that answer given by the petitioner is not correct, so it will be deemed to be admitted that the answer of the question ID No. 170440 and Question Id No. 170482 are correct. He further submits that upon query raised by the petitioner with regard to the vacancy position as well as marks obtained by the last selected candidates for the subject of Economics in the EBC-I category as well as female quota, the Respondent-JSSC has filed affidavit dated 13.12.2024 (Reply on behalf of Respondent no. He further submits that upon query raised by the petitioner with regard to the vacancy position as well as marks obtained by the last selected candidates for the subject of Economics in the EBC-I category as well as female quota, the Respondent-JSSC has filed affidavit dated 13.12.2024 (Reply on behalf of Respondent no. 2 to I.A. No. 8797/2024), wherein they have stated that 13 candidates have been recommended for appointment. Further, the Respondent - JSSC has also mentioned that the petitioner has scored 287.994 marks and the last selected candidate i.e. 13th candidate who has been recommended for appointment had secured 290.937 marks. However, the Respondent-JSSC has failed to disclose the marks of the last selected candidate i.e.the 14th candidate. He lastly submits that in view of the aforesaid facts, it is the specific case of the petitioner that she is entitled to be appointed against the 14th position in view of the fact that one seat had been horizontally reserved for female candidate and also taking into consideration the fact that if the petitioner is given the additional 2.5 marks to which she is entitled in view of the fact that she had answered one of question correctly which was also found correct in three answer keys issued by the expert committee and it was only at a later stage i.e. in the fourth answer key which was issued on 03.01.2024, the said answer has been declared to be incorrect. 5. Learned counsel for the Respondent-JSSC submits that after publication of the corrected model answer on 28.11.2023, again several candidates submitted their online objections before the JSSC about the corrected model answer and as such JSSC sent the aforesaid objections of the candidates for several subjects including Economics which were received through Email up-to 20.12.2023 before the experts for their opinion/correction/amendment in the corrected model answer published on 28.11.2023. The concerned agency vide its e-mail dated 20.12.2023, 22.12.2023 and 23.12.2023 suggested answer key changes in six subject i.e. Geography, Commerce, History, English, Sanskrit and Hindi and the concerned agency vide its e-mail dated 26.12.2023 at 11.47 AM also informed the JSSC about the change of 2 answer key for subject Economics. The concerned agency vide its e-mail dated 20.12.2023, 22.12.2023 and 23.12.2023 suggested answer key changes in six subject i.e. Geography, Commerce, History, English, Sanskrit and Hindi and the concerned agency vide its e-mail dated 26.12.2023 at 11.47 AM also informed the JSSC about the change of 2 answer key for subject Economics. After receiving the aforesaid e-mail, JSSC again requested the concerned agency to inform that whether there would be further any change in any model answer and the concerned agency thereafter on 26.12.2023 through its e- mail received at 3.38 PM confirmed that there will not be any changes further in the following subject Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Commerce, History, English, Sanskrit, Hindi and Economics. The JSSC after receiving the same (Annexure-C) again published the final amended model answer on 03.01.2024. Thereafter, the list of the shortlisted candidate was published on 09.03.2023 vide Annexure-13 of the writ application, in which the Petitioner has not been shortlisted for verification of her testimonials and Petitioner in order to make out her case filed representation dated 13.03.2024 and subsequently has filed the writ application before this Court challenging the model Answer after publication of the list of the shortlisted candidate for verification of documents on 09.03.2023 which is not maintainable. He further submits that it is settled law that after participation in the selection process, the unsuccessful candidates cannot challenge the criteria of the selection process and also in view of the settled law that even if there is error in the model answer, the same is common for all and on that ground the result cannot be set aside. Learned counsel further submits that it is not out of place to mention here that 14 post/ vacancies were advertised for EBC-I category for the subject Economics and after verification of testimonials of the candidates, 13 candidates have already been recommended for appointment and 1 post/ vacancy has been kept reserved in EBC-I Category in compliance of the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by this Court in this case. The petitioner has secured 287.99400 marks (Normalized) and last candidate i.e. 13th candidate who has been recommended for appointment has secured 290.93700 marks and there are several candidates in between 287.99400 and 290.93700 marks (Normalized). 6. The petitioner has secured 287.99400 marks (Normalized) and last candidate i.e. 13th candidate who has been recommended for appointment has secured 290.93700 marks and there are several candidates in between 287.99400 and 290.93700 marks (Normalized). 6. Learned counsel further submits that it has been contended by the petitioner that petitioner is a female candidate and one vacancy was reserved for female category candidate in EBC- I category and no female candidate has been recommended. The aforesaid contention of the petitioner is also not correct in view of the fact that in 13 recommended candidates, 2 female candidates have also been recommended for appointment i.e. Nikhat Perween, EBC-I Category, marks- 292.16700 (Normalized) and Sanskriti Kumari Lajja, EBC-I Category, marks 290.93700 (Normalized). It is evident from the facts stated above that Petitioner has secured less marks; than the last successful candidate in her category and as such she is not eligible for appointment. Hence, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. 7. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the documents annexed with the respective affidavits and averments made therein, it appears that Respondent-JSSC issued an Advertisement being Advertisement no. 02/2023 wherein it has been indicated that P.G.T Teacher for 11 subjects are to be selected; out of them regular vacancy under Economics Subject was 167 seats out of which 14 seats were reserved for EBC-1 and 1 seat was reserved for EBC-1 women. The petitioner applied for P.G.T Teacher in Economics in EBC-I category. It is further evident from records that after conducting examination, JSSC published the master key according to which 116 answers of the Petitioner were correct and she had objection regarding Question I.D no. 170482 for which she submitted her objection to the Commission. Consequently, three more answer keys were published on the basis of the advice expert committees and in the last answer key, one answer of question being I.D No. 170440 was changed which was considered as correct answer in prior published answer keys has been declared to be incorrect and the question regarding which the Petitioner submitted her objection, was not changed in all the answer keys. 8. The main contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows: 1. 8. The main contentions of learned counsel for the petitioner are as follows: 1. The change in the answer of question ID no.170440 is arbitrary as it was taken to be correct by the three answer keys after verification by three different expert committees. 2. With regard to question ID No. 170482 three options of the answer of the said question are correct as per text book of H.L. Ahuja and B.K. Jhingan and the respondent authorities have never denied that answer supplied by the petitioner is not correct as such it shall be deemed to be admitted that the answer selected by the petitioner is correct. 3. He also contended that the Petitioner is a female candidate and one vacancy was reserved for female category candidate in EBC- I category and no female candidate has been recommended; as such she is entitled to be appointed against the 14th position in view of the fact that one seat had been horizontally reserved for female candidate 9. Contention No.1& 2 of the Petitioner are not acceptable to this court as it is a settled legal principle that the Court should not re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate as it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academicians/experts and in the event of doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority; rather than to the candidate. Therefore this court is of the opinion that if an error has been committed by the examination authority, all the candidates who gave the examination suffer and the entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed merely because some candidates are dissatisfied or disappointed or perceive that some injustice have been caused to them by an erroneous answer. As stated hereinabove, all the candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. the relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below: “ 30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. In this regard, reliance is placed upon the decision of Hon’ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P. the relevant paragraphs are quoted herein below: “ 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 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. 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. 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. 33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the learned Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible….” 10. 33. The facts of the case before us indicate that in the first instance the learned Single Judge took it upon himself to actually ascertain the correctness of the key answers to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible….” 10. Having regard to the law laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) this court is of the opinion that there is little scope to enter into the question raised by the present writ petitioner, particularly in view of the fact that the Expert Committee has come out with the answer keys after considering the objections. Since the Expert Committee has finalized the answer keys there is a presumption attached to it about it correctness and in view of the matter, it shall not be proper for the Court to sit over the opinion of the Expert Committee, inasmuch as, this Court is not expert in the subject of Economics. 11. In regard to contention no. 3 of the Petitioner that Petitioner is a female candidate and one vacancy was reserved for female category candidate in EBC- I category and no female candidate has been recommended; it appears from perusal of records that out of 13 recommended candidates, 2 female candidates have also been recommended for appointment i.e. Nikhat Perween, EBC-I Category, marks- 292.16700 (Normalized) and Sanskriti Kumari Lajja, EBC-I Category, marks 290.93700 (Normalized). Thus, it is evident from the aforesaid facts and also that Petitioner has secured less marks i.e. she secured 287.99400 marks (Normalized) which is much less than the last successful candidate in her category; as such, she is not eligible for any relief. 12. Having regard to the aforesaid discussions, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. Further, the candidate securing the highest marks as per the merit list in EBC-I category after the last selected candidate be recommended for the appointment against the one vacancy which has been kept reserved in EBC-I Category in compliance of the order dated 18.04.2024 passed by this Court. 13. The writ application stands dismissed. 14. Pending I.A. if any, is also closed. No cost.