ORDER : 1. Since the issue involved in both the Writ Petitions is one and the same, both the Writ Petitions are being heard together and are being disposed of by way of this common order. 2. Aggrieved by the action of the respondents in not evaluating Question Nos.67, 97, 100, and 109 of the question paper preview dated 02.08.2024, issued on 26.09.2024, with the correct answers to be assessed by subject experts and reference books, and in not considering the petitioners’ representations dated 28.09.2024, 17.10.2024, and 18.10.2024 for inclusion of their names at Serial Nos.26 and 55, respectively, in the list of the selected candidates for the written test for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, under Employment Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024, these two Writ Petitions have been filed. It is also to be noted that in Writ Petition No.29390 of 2024, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-evaluation of Question Nos.67, 97 and 109, whereas in Writ Petition No.29717 of 2024, the petitioner is aggrieved by the non-evaluation of Question Nos.67, 97, 100 and 109. Except for the additional grievance relating to Question No.100 in the latter petition, the issue involved in both Writ Petitions is identical. 3. Heard Sri S.Madan Mohan Rao, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri S.Rahul Reddy, learned Special Government Pleader representing learned Additional Advocate General for the respondents. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in response to Employment Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024 issued by respondent No.1 inviting applications from eligible candidates for recruitment to executive and non- executive posts, the petitioners applied for Executive Cadre post serial No.1 i.e., Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. Subsequently, the petitioners appeared for the computer based test held on 07.08.2024 with Hall Ticket Nos.221117100437 and 221112100443, respectively. Thereafter, the respondents released the question paper preview dated 02.08.2024 on 26.09.2024. As per the preview, the petitioners secured 88 and 85 marks, respectively. However, upon verification, the petitioners found that the answers to Question Nos.67 (ID No.630680120673), 97 (ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID No.63068093720), and 109 (ID No.63068079508) were incorrect. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to an additional three and four marks, respectively, thereby enhancing their scores to 91 (88+3) and 89 (85+4). Therefore, the petitioners submitted their objections on 28.09.2024 through e-mail. However, upon verification, the petitioners found that the answers to Question Nos.67 (ID No.630680120673), 97 (ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID No.63068093720), and 109 (ID No.63068079508) were incorrect. Consequently, the petitioners are entitled to an additional three and four marks, respectively, thereby enhancing their scores to 91 (88+3) and 89 (85+4). Therefore, the petitioners submitted their objections on 28.09.2024 through e-mail. (b) It is further submitted that on 08.10.2024, the respondents released the online provisional merit list of qualified candidates pertaining to the aforesaid notification, wherein the petitioners were shown at Serial Nos.66 and 140 with 88 and 85 marks, respectively. It is contended that the petitioners belong to BC-B and BC-A communities and that if three and four marks are added to their respective scores, their totals would increase to 91 and 89 marks, thereby placing their names at Serial Nos.26 and 55 respectively. In such circumstances, the petitioners are fully entitled to be considered for appointment on merit to the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. Therefore, the petitioners submitted representations dated 28.09.2024, 17.10.2024 and 18.10.2024 to the respondents, stating that the answers to Question Nos.67 (ID No.630680120673), 97 (ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID No.63068093720) and 109 (ID No.63068079508) in the question paper preview dated 02.08.2024 were incorrect and requested to review the same by subject experts, award the correct marks and issue a revised merit list reflecting their placement at Serial Nos.26 and 55 for selection to the post of Executive Cadre serial No.1, Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. However, no action has been taken by the respondents so far. Therefore, the action of the respondents in not evaluating the questions and not referring the same to the Expert Committee is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional and in violation of the principles of natural justice. 5. Per contra, learned Special Government Pleader appearing for the respondents submits that the entire recruitment process of Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024 was entrusted to M/s. Educational Consultants (India) Limited (Ed-CIL), a Central Public Sector Enterprise that conducts recruitment tests for various Central and State Government organizations, pursuant to the MoU dated 23.03.2024. (b) The petitioners submitted their online applications for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, and were subsequently issued Call Letters bearing Hall Ticket Nos.221117100437 and 221112100443 to appear for the computer based test held on 07.08.2024. (b) The petitioners submitted their online applications for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, and were subsequently issued Call Letters bearing Hall Ticket Nos.221117100437 and 221112100443 to appear for the computer based test held on 07.08.2024. The response sheets were displayed on 13.08.2024 and the objections from candidates regarding the response sheet were accepted up to 15.08.2024 with 441 objections received for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade. This includes the objections raised for Question Nos.67 (ID No.630680120673), 97 (ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID No.63068093720) and 109 (ID No.63068079508). (c) In this connection, M/s.Ed-CIL constituted a Subject Expert Committee comprising the following members to examine the objections received from the candidates: S. No. Designation Experience Highest Qualification Institution 1. Lecturer 9 years Post Graduate Government Polytechnic College, Pallakad, Kerala 2. Assistant Professor 10 years Doctorate Pandit Deendayal Petroleum University, Gandhinagar, Gujarat 3. Assistant Professor 10 years Post Graduate SGI Engineering College, affiliated to Bikaner Technical University, Sikar, Rajasthan The above Committee was provided with the preliminary key and the objections received, which were thoroughly examined and reviewed. After detailed analysis and reference to relevant literature, textbooks and materials, the Committee suggested necessary corrections for the valid objections in the preliminary key and the final key was displayed on 26.09.2024, after incorporating the corrections suggested by the Expert Committee. Subsequently, the provisional merit list for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, was published on 08.10.2024. Thereafter, the selected candidates were called for certificate verification on 05.11.2024 and the candidates, within the zone of selection, were issued appointment orders on 06.11.2024. The petitioners had secured 88 and 85 marks respectively in the computer based test held on 07.08.2024 and were placed at 66 th and 140 th ranks in the provisional merit list, which fell short of the marks necessary for selection. It is also submitted that the answers to Question Nos.67, 97, 100, and 109 were duly revised in the final key only after a detailed review by the Expert Committee constituted by M/s. EdCIL. Therefore, there are no merits in these Writ Petitions. Hence, learned Special Government Pleader prays this Court to dismiss these two Writ Petitions. 6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the material available on record. 7. Therefore, there are no merits in these Writ Petitions. Hence, learned Special Government Pleader prays this Court to dismiss these two Writ Petitions. 6. This Court has taken note of the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties. Perused the material available on record. 7. A perusal of the record discloses that the petitioners had applied for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, pursuant to Employment Notification No.02/2024 dated 15.05.2024 and were subsequently issued Call Letters bearing Hall Ticket Nos.221117100437 and 221112100443 to appear for the computer based test held on 07.08.2024. The response sheets for the said test were displayed on 13.08.2024 and the candidates were given an opportunity to submit objections regarding the preliminary answer key up to 15.08.2024. A total of 441 objections were received for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, which includes Question Nos.67 (ID No.630680120673), 97 (ID No.630680103226), 100 (ID No.63068093720) and 109 (ID No.63068079508). 8. In this regard, M/s. EdCIL, a Central Public Sector Enterprise entrusted with conducting the entire recruitment process pursuant to the MoU dated 23.03.2024, had constituted a Subject Expert Committee to examine the objections raised by the candidates. The Expert Committee was provided with the preliminary answer key and all the objections received from the candidates. The Committee undertook a detailed examination and review of the objections, referring to relevant literature, textbooks and study materials to ensure accuracy. Based on its thorough analysis, the Committee suggested necessary corrections to the valid objections identified in the preliminary key. The details of the objections received on the preliminary key and the action taken in respect of Question Nos.67, 97, 100, and 109 are as follows: Question No. Question ID Answer in Preliminary Key Objections Received Action Taken Answer in Final Key Reference 67 630680120673 630680467667 (2) 3 Answer key changed 630680467669 (4) Control Systems Engineering, Author: Norman S. Nise, Publication: Wiley 97 630680103226 630680401163 (1) 24 Answer key changed 630680401165 (3) Control Systems Engineering, Author: Norman S. Nise, Publication: Wiley 100 63068093720 630680363576 (2) 5 Answer key changed 630680363575 (1) Control Systems Engineering, Author: Norman S. Nise, Publication: Wiley 109 630680308071 630680308071 (3) 3 Answer key changed 630680308072 (4) A Course in Electrical and Electronic Measurements and Instrumentation, A.K. Sawhney, 19th Edition, Page 352 9. Thereafter, the final answer key incorporating the corrections recommended by the Expert Committee was published on 26.09.2024. Following this, the provisional merit list for the post of Management Trainee (E & M), E-2 Grade, was published on 08.10.2024 and the candidates who fell within the zone of selection were called for certificate verification on 05.11.2024, and the appointment orders were subsequently issued on 06.11.2024. 10. Here, this Court deems it appropriate to refer to certain judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court laying down the law on the role of Expert Committees in examination and recruitment matters: 11. In Ran Vijay Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh , (2018) 2 SCC 357 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held 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 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. (Emphasis supplied) (ii) In Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Rahul Singh , (2018) 7 SCC 254 , the Hon’ble Supreme 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 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 answers is better or more correct. 14. In the present case, we find that all the three questions needed a long process of reasoning and the High Court itself has noticed that the stand of the Commission is also supported by certain textbooks. When there are conflicting views, then the court must bow down to the opinion of the experts. Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields and, therefore, they must exercise great restraint and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset the opinion of the experts. (Emphasis supplied) (iii) In Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission , (2018) 8 SCC 81 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Expert Committee, constituted for validation of the answer key, had examined all the objections raised by the appellants and had provided satisfactory clarifications. (Emphasis supplied) (iii) In Richal v. Rajasthan Public Service Commission , (2018) 8 SCC 81 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that the Expert Committee, constituted for validation of the answer key, had examined all the objections raised by the appellants and had provided satisfactory clarifications. The Commission accepted the Report of the Expert Committee and revised the results accordingly. The Court held that the recommendations of the Expert Committee, once accepted by the Commission, are to be implemented. 12. In view of the foregoing discussion, in the instant case, it is evident that the issues raised in respect of Question Nos.67, 97, 100 and 109 were thoroughly examined and addressed by the Expert Committee constituted for the purpose. The final answer key and provisional merit list were published only after careful scrutiny and correction by the experts, strictly in accordance with the rules, regulations and procedures governing the examination. The petitioners, having secured 88 and 85 marks respectively in the computer-based test, were placed at 66th and 140th ranks in the provisional merit list, which were insufficient for selection. Therefore, this Court is of the view that the recruitment process was conducted following all the prescribed procedures and under expert scrutiny, ensuring fairness and transparency. 13. As consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh’s case (1 supra), Rahul Singh’s case (2 supra), and Richal’s case (3 supra), the Courts must exercise restraint in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters and should intervene only in cases of patent, glaring or material errors, which are not present in the instant case. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the opinion that there are no merits in these two Writ Petitions and are liable to be dismissed. 14. Accordingly, these two Writ Petitions are dismissed. Miscellaneous petitions, if any, pending in these Writ Petitions shall stand closed. There shall be no order as to costs.