JUDGMENT Pankaj Bhandari, J 1. Appellants have preferred these Special Appeals (Writ) aggrieved by Order dated 31.05.2024, whereby 138 writ petitions were dismissed by a common order. 2. Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that the appellants herein and other petitioners who are aggrieved by the final answer key have preferred the writ petitions before the High Court challenging certain questions and the final answers approved by the Rajasthan Staff Selection Board (for short ‘RSSB’). Out of 138 petitions, 21 appeals have been preferred before this court. It is pertinent to note that after reviewing of the answer key, the matter was agitated before the High Court in writ jurisdiction and High Court has referred certain questions to the expert committee. The expert committee thereafter reviewed the answers and issued the final answer key and results were declared, aggrieved by which, the present appeals have been preferred. 3. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that certain questions ought to have been deleted, but the same have not been deleted. Certain questions where the answer was originally correct has been changed. It is contended that after declaration of the answer key, objections with regard to 22 questions were raised before the authorities and authorities after reviewing the answers, deleted five questions, changed three answers and 14 answers remain unchanged. It is contended that if the answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous, the Courts can review the said answers. In the present case, the answers were palpably and demonstrably wrong and, therefore, learned Single Judge ought to have reviewed the answer key. 4. Our attention has been drawn to question No.19 which reads as under:- 5. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that as per the text books, the correct answer is Option A and as per the experts committee Option B is the correct answer which is not the correct answer. 6. Per contra, learned counsel for the RSSB and learned AAG contends that this question was neither placed before the learned Single Judge nor was considered by the learned Single Judge and now at the stage of appeal, the same cannot be raised. It is contended that Bisaldev Raso had nothing to do with “Vir Kavya” and the experts committee had rightly changed the answer to Prem Kavya. 7. It is contended that Bisaldev Raso had nothing to do with “Vir Kavya” and the experts committee had rightly changed the answer to Prem Kavya. 7. Our attention has also been drawn to Question No.55 which reads as under:- Question No.55 : Children who belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or Socially and Educationally Backward Class are defined as- A. Weaker Section. B. Special Backward Class. C. Below Poverty Line. D. Disadvantaged Group. In the preliminary answer key, the answer was Option D and after receiving the objections, the expert committee deleted the question. After the interim order order passed by the Court dated 12.09.2023, there was re-verification by the experts and the question was deleted. 8. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that the answer in this case should have been Option D which was the original answer in the preliminary answer key, as the children belonging to Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe or socially and educationally backward class are defined as disadvantaged group. 9. Per contra, Counsel for the RSSB and learned AAG contends that the definition of disadvantaged groups includes within its ambit those children who are disadvantaged on account of cultural, economic, geographical, linguistic or gender relating factors and thus, the expert committee deleted the question. The expert committee thereafter constituted in pursuance of the interim order passed by the High Court dated 12.09.2023 has also deleted the question. It is contended that the rationale adopted by the expert committee for affirming the answer noted in the final answer key was that as per the definition clause of the Right to Education Act, 2009, the definition of ‘disadvantaged group’ is broader, which also includes within its ambit those children who are disadvantaged on account of cultural, economic, geographical, linguistic or gender relating factors. Therefore, as the question included only a select few criterions for said qualification, it was deemed appropriate to delete the question in order to remove ambiguity for all candidates appearing in the examination. 10. Our attention has also been drawn to Question No.84 which reads as under:- Question No.84 : If any upper primary school has a total enrollment of 130 students, then how many teachers have to be provided by the Government in that school? 10. Our attention has also been drawn to Question No.84 which reads as under:- Question No.84 : If any upper primary school has a total enrollment of 130 students, then how many teachers have to be provided by the Government in that school? A. 2 B. 3 C. 4 D. 5 In the preliminary answer key, the correct answer was Option C. However, pursuant to receiving objections, the expert committee, changed the answer to Option D. After the interim order passed by the Court dated 12.09.2023, post re-verification by the experts, the correct answer retained as Option D. 12. It is contended that for upper primary school, there has to be one teacher for each subject and one additional head teacher for schools which have more than 100 students. Thus, the option D should not have been the correct answer as the figure would be more than 5 and, therefore, question ought to have been deleted. 13. Per contra, it is contended by learned counsel for the RSSB and learned AAG that the experts committee have given justification for retaining the answer as Option D. It is contended that the rationale adopted by the experts while re-affirming Option D was on account of pure mathematical precision, in terms of the Right to Education Act, 2009, which is the applicable statute. Therefore, the question was not required to be deleted. 14. Our attention has also been drawn to question No.113 which reads as under:- Question No.113: Choose the correct meaning of the underlined idiom from the options that follow: Please get to the point Don’t beat around the bush A. say things to the point B. talk about important subject C. avoid talking about what is important D. destroy plants 15. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that only answer possible for the above question was Option A and the expert committee has erred in deleting the question. 16. Per contra, learned counsel for the RSSB and learned AAG contends that to talk about important subject is also similar to say things to the point and therefore, the expert committee saw it fit to delete the question. 17. Our attention has also been drawn to question No.118 which reads as under:- Question No.118: Which of the following social situation influenced the life of human being? A. Governance System B. Agriculture C. Vegetation D. Religious Place 18. 17. Our attention has also been drawn to question No.118 which reads as under:- Question No.118: Which of the following social situation influenced the life of human being? A. Governance System B. Agriculture C. Vegetation D. Religious Place 18. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that in the initial answer key, the correct answer was Option A which is correct answer. After receiving the objections, the answer was changed to Option D. The expert committee also retained Option D as correct answer. 19. Per contra, learned counsel for the RSSB and learned AAG contends that religious places play a multifaceted role in society, significantly contributing to human development both in terms of spiritual well-being and social, cultural, and economic growth. The influence of these places extends beyond individual faith, shaping community cohesion, social welfare, and ethical norms that promote overall human flourishing. Religious places serve as focal points for community gathering, strengthening bonds between people through shared beliefs, rituals, and social activities. These spaces foster a sense of belonging and identity, which is critical for social cohesion. It is contended that religious places are integral to the fabric of society playing a performed role in human development. It is argued that the governance system is not a social situation, similarly agriculture and vegetation are also not social situations and, therefore, the experts committee have opined that Option D is the correct answer. 20. Our attention has also been drawn to question No.126 which reads as under:- Question No.126: “Although a science teacher doesn’t give direct explanation of any topic still teacher has an important role to play in inquiry approach’’. What role does a science teacher has to play in inquiry approach? A. Instructor and Facilitator. B. Instructor and Motivator. C. Facilitator and Motivator. D. Guide and Instructor. In the preliminary answer key, the correct answer was given as Option C. After receiving objections, the expert committee changed the correct answer to Option D. In post re-verification by the experts in pursuance of the interim order passed by this Court dated 12.09.2023, the option D was retained as the correct answer. 21. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that Option C should have been the correct answer and the experts have erred in changing the answer given in the preliminary answer key. 22. 21. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that Option C should have been the correct answer and the experts have erred in changing the answer given in the preliminary answer key. 22. Per contra, counsel appearing for the RSSB and learned AAG contends that the experts have given specific reason for changing the answer from Option C to Option D. It is contended that a science teacher has to play the role of Guide and Instructor in the inquiry approach, as a science teacher has to pilot the student’s thought process, for him to arrive at an answer independently. Motivator as included in option C, does not fit in the inquiry approach and, therefore, the experts thought Option D to be the correct answer and consequently, the answer was changed to Option D. 23. Our attention has also been drawn to question No.150 which reads as under:- Question No.150 : Keeping library in digital form- A. Auto Book Keeping B. Offline Library C. Digital book recordsD. Digital library. 24. It is contended by counsel for the appellants that in the model answer key, the answer was digital library, however, after receiving of objections, the question was deleted which was palpably wrong and the correct answer should have been Option D. 25. Per contra, learned counsel for the RSSB and learned AAG contends that digital book records is also keeping of a library in digital form as content of book are converted to digital form and are retained in a library. Therefore, the experts committee were of the view that both answer C and D are correct answer and therefore, they thought it proper to delete the question. 26. It is contended by learned AAG that the first expert committee published the answer key on 18.03.2023. Thereafter, by the Court’s interim order, the second expert committee was constituted on 12.09.2023 which issued final answer key on 29.09.2023. Out of 21,000 posts of Teacher Grade III (Level-I), 20,020 appointment letters have been issued and as many as 19,786 candidates have already joined. It is contended that there is no order for keeping any post vacant for the appellants and any change in the answer key would have cascading effects. Out of 21,000 posts of Teacher Grade III (Level-I), 20,020 appointment letters have been issued and as many as 19,786 candidates have already joined. It is contended that there is no order for keeping any post vacant for the appellants and any change in the answer key would have cascading effects. It is contended that miniscule inquiry cannot be done as the matter has been examined by two experts committees and as per the judgment of Apex Court, the Courts cannot adopt the role of an expert. It is contended that the learned Single Judge has dealt with the judgments of the Apex Court as well as the High Court and has come to the conclusion that there is no palpable error, so as to nullify the result. It is contended that the delayed appointments adversely affects the public at large, as non- appointments of teachers nullifies the need for conducting the said examination periodically by the State. It is also contended that no malafadies are alleged against any specific officials of the RSSB and due procedure was followed whilst administering the examination for the post of Teacher Grade III (Level-I). 27. We have considered the contentions and have gone through the questions, the answer-key as well as the reviewed answer key and the answer key finally prepared after the interim order passed by the Courts and have carefully gone through the order passed by the learned Single Judge. 28. Learned Single Judge has dealt with few questions and has come to the conclusion that there is no palpable error in the answers and the final answer key arrived at by the Expert committee cannot be said to be demonstrably erroneous. The jurisdiction of the Court exercising the judicial review of an examination is to merely scrutinize the process in question to see if it was arrived at in a procedure fair and regular manner, free form illegality, not motivated by malice or malafadies or not so manifestly unreasonable in its conclusion that no reasonable individual placed in the situation would arrive at such a conclusion. 29. The Apex Court in Kanpur University and Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta and Ors. 1983 AIR (SC) 1230 expounded that when an answer key is palpably and demonstrably erroneous, then only the Courts can entertain a petition. 29. The Apex Court in Kanpur University and Ors. Vs. Samir Gupta and Ors. 1983 AIR (SC) 1230 expounded that when an answer key is palpably and demonstrably erroneous, then only the Courts can entertain a petition. The Apex Court held that the answer key should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as incorrect. 30. Present is a case where two experts committee have opined and have deleted five questions as there was ambiguity in the answers, three answers have been changed and 14 have remain unchanged. 31. We are of the considered view that even if the Court considers an answer to be inappropriate, the Courts cannot sit as an expert over the expert committee, once the expert committee has given reasons for arriving at a particular answer key. Learned Single Judge has properly dealt with the entire matter and has not committed any illegality in dismissing the writ petitions. Consequently, we do not find any force in these appeals, more particularly when the majority of the appointments have already been made and changing the answer key at this stage would have cascading effect. 32. These Special Appeals (Writ) are accordingly, dismissed. Pending applications, if any, stand disposed. 33. No order as to cost.