ORDER : Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the issue involve in this matter has also been considered and decided by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Dr. Lipsa Meena and Anr. Vs. Principle Secretary, Department of Medical, Health And Family Welfare passed in D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 761/2024 decided on 28.01.2025, wherein the following order was passed:- “These appeals have been filed on behalf of the appellants/petitioners challenging the judgment dated 05.12.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14832/2024 along with other connected writ petitions. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to the advertisement dated 31.05.2024 issued by the respondents for appointment on the post of Medical Officer (Dental) the appellants/petitioners applied for appointment on the said post. After the examination was conducted the result was declared on 18.07.2024 and on the same date, the respondents issued a Modal Answer Key and invited the objections, if any, from the applicants. In pursuance thereto, all the appellants/petitioners submitted their objections and in total as per reply submitted on behalf of the respondents, 61 grievances were received for correctness/deletion/change of answer for 61 questions. Thereafter, the respondents constituted an expert committee and the said expert committee accepted 16 grievances for 16 questions and as per report submitted by the expert committee, the respondents have implemented the recommendations made by the expert committee and declared the result accordingly. All the appellants/petitioners filed writ petitions stating therein that the expert committee has wrongly considered the grievance with regard to Questions No.98, 94, 19 & 38. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners submit that the expert committee failed to consider their objections properly and learned Single Judge has also not considered the books referred by them in support of their contentions while arguing the matter before the learned Single Judge. He further submits that learned Single Judge should have referred the matter to the independent expert committee. He further submits that the action of the respondents is in violation of principles of natural justice and if the result is revised by further referring the matter to the independent expert committee, the petitioners will have chance of success in getting the appointment. He further submits that allegation of mala-fide is not necessary to be alleged in the writ petition. He further submits that allegation of mala-fide is not necessary to be alleged in the writ petition. Learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ranvijay Singh Vs. State of U.P.; Civil Appeal No.367/2017, decided on 11.12.2017, which reads as under: “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 answer to seven questions. This was completely beyond his jurisdiction and as decided by this Court on several occasions, the exercise carried out was impermissible. Fortunately, the Division Bench did not repeat the error but in a sense, endorsed the view of the learned Single Judge, by not considering the decisions of this Court but sending four key answers for consideration by a one man Expert Committee. 34. Having come to the conclusion that the High Court (the learned Single Judge as well as the Division Bench) ought to have been far more circumspect in interfering and deciding on the correctness of the key answers, the situation today is that there is a third evaluation of the answer sheets and a third set of results is now ready for declaration. Given this scenario, the options before us are to nullify the entire re-evaluation process and depend on the result declared on 14 th September, 2010 or to go by the third set of results. Cancelling the examination is not an option. Whichever option is chosen, there will be some candidates who are likely to suffer and lose their jobs while some might be entitled to consideration for employment. 37. As a result of our discussion and taking in to consideration all the possibilities that might arise, we issue the following directions: (1) The results prepared by the Board consequent upon the decision dated 2 nd November, 2015 of the High Court should be declared by the Board within two weeks from today. (2) Candidates appointed and working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the earlier occasions, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should not be allowed to continue. (3) Candidates now selected for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers (after the third declaration of results) should be appointed by the State by creating supernumerary posts. (2) Candidates appointed and working as Trained Graduate Teachers pursuant to the declaration of results on the earlier occasions, if found unsuccessful on the third declaration of results, should not be allowed to continue. (3) Candidates now selected for appointment as Trained Graduate Teachers (after the third declaration of results) should be appointed by the State by creating supernumerary posts. However, these newly appointed Trained Graduate Teachers will not be entitled to any consequential benefits.” Learned counsel further relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Vanshika Yadav Vs. Union of India & Ors.; Writ Petition (Civil) No.335/2024, which reads as under: “4. We request the Director at IIT Delhi to constitute a team of three experts of the subject concerned. The expert team constituted by the Director is requested to formulate its opinion on the correct option for the above question and to remit its opinion to the Secretary General of this Court, preferably by 12 noon on 23 July2024.” Learned counsel for the respondents opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants/petitioners and submitted that the view taken by the expert committee cannot be tested by this Court as the scope of judicial review for this Court is very limited. He further submits that total 4599 candidates submitted their applications for the appointment on the post of Medical Officer (Dental) and out of which 4299 candidates appeared in the examination and finally 2900 candidates selected and appointment orders have been issued to them subject to the writ petition. He further submits that no allegation of mala-fide has been levelled by the appellants/petitioners in the writ petition and no person by name has been added party in the writ petition. Counsel submits that the respondents have constituted the expert committee within time and based on their recommendation, the selections have been made and the selection process is already over. We have perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge after consideration of all the questions as well as the report of the expert committee held as under: “24. We have perused the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge. Learned Single Judge after consideration of all the questions as well as the report of the expert committee held as under: “24. In this regard, it is noted that on the basis of the reports of the Expert Committee and also, on the consideration of the objections so received by the Expert Committee, the respondent-RUHS finally adopted the experts report and deleted 4 questions (whereby, bonus marks were given to all candidates, due to wrong framing of the following question ID nos. - 3008641299; 3008641301; 3008641223; 3008641233) in total and changed the answer in 5 questions. Whereas, qua the remaining questions against which the objections were received,(D.B. SAW/751/2024 and 4 more have been filed in this matter. Please refer the same for further orders) the original answers noted in the model answer key, were maintained. Correspondingly, it is noted that this Court whilst undertaking the exercise of judicial review, merely scrutinizes the process in question - administrative or statutory, but necessarily public in its outcome, to see if it was arrived at in a fair and regular manner, free from illegality and not motivated by malice or mala fides. The process and the impugned finding, ought not to be so manifestly unreasonable in its conclusion, that no reasonable individual placed in an akin situation would arrive at such a conclusion. 25. However, in the foregoing facts and circumstances of the matter in hand it can be inferred that the objections raised by the petitioners/candidates against the model answer key were duly taken note of the by the respondent-RUHS and thereafter, in examining those objections, the Expert Committee duly analyzed the merits and correctness of the objections and thereafter, effectuated necessary changes in the final answer key dated 06.08.2024, wherever required, as is noted above. Therefore, no procedural lapse occurred in carrying out the said exercise.In such an event, any challenge raised to the correctness and/or validity of the opinion of the experts, on the basis of which the final answer key dated 06.08.2024 was amended. Consequentially, this Court, is not inclined to tender interference in the instant matter. 26. Therefore, as long as all the candidates who took the said examination, are treated equally viz-a-viz the system of evaluation in place, sans discrimination, then no grievance qua the impugned examination subsists. Consequentially, this Court, is not inclined to tender interference in the instant matter. 26. Therefore, as long as all the candidates who took the said examination, are treated equally viz-a-viz the system of evaluation in place, sans discrimination, then no grievance qua the impugned examination subsists. It is well settled law that in academic matters, the experts word is the last word. The court neither has the requisite expertise nor infrastructure to go into the correctness of such decisions. As a result, the court cannot sit in judgment over those findings of experts and examine the material on record and arrive at its own conclusions as a court of appeal. It is also not possible in such circumstances to go on appointing committees, especially when the experts have duly analyzed the objections received from the candidates/petitioners and thereafter, released the final answer key dated 06.08.2024. An unending litigation for employment in public posts, in connection with which, the career trajectory of so many young individuals is coherently tied up with, cannot be permitted to be in abeyance for so long, that the end result subsumes and overshadows the duress and hardship faced by the litigants. Moreover, even as per the salutary rule as endorsed in Sindhu B.S. Vs. Union Of India & Ors. registered as WP (C) No. 21640/2023, the writ jurisdiction of the Courts cannot be invoked to check correctness of ‘answer key’, as it is purely an academic matter. The relevant extract from the afore-cited ratio is reproduced herein below: “3. The question regarding the correctness or otherwise of an answer key is a purely academic matter which is not an aspect that can be reviewed in the exercise of the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. This Court had on the earlier occasion directed consideration of the representation submitted by the petitioner and others, and pursuant to the judgment of this Court a committee of experts had been appointed to go into the question. It is thereafter that Ext. P1 report has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the expert body (see the judgment in HP Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 759 and Ram Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 857). It is thereafter that Ext. P1 report has been prepared. This Court is not sitting in appeal over the decision of the expert body (see the judgment in HP Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur & Ors. (2010) 6 SCC 759 and Ram Vijay Singh and Ors. Vs. State of U.P. and Ors. (2018) 2 SCC 857). It is also settled law that the Court while exercising its power of judicial review is concerned with the decision-making process and not the decision as such and a mere disagreement with the decision-making process or the decision of the administrative authority is no reason for a constitutional Court to interfere. (See Afcons Infrastructure Ltd. Vs. Nagpur Metro Rail Corpn. Ltd. [ (2016) 16 SCC 818 ], Dwarkadas Marfatia and Sons Vs. Port of India [ (1989) 3 SCC 293 ], Tata Cellular Vs. Union of India [ (1994) 6 SCC 651 ] and Jagdish Mandal Vs. State of Orissa [ (2007) 14 SCC 517 ].” (Emphasis laid) 27. As a result, the answer key should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong, albeit the same should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. 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 correct. However, such was not the case in the facts and circumstances of the present case, as demonstrated above. If it is a case of doubt, unquestionably the answer-key must be preferred and only if it is beyond the realm of doubt, the possibility of judicial review must be entertained. In this regard, reliance can be placed upon the dictum of this Court, as previously enunciated in Surjan Lal Dhawan (Supra). The view as noted above, has also been reiterated by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments namely Rahul Singh (Supra), Arun Kumar (Supra) and Mukesh Thakur (Supra) and Tajvir Singh Sodhi (Supra) and also, the Division Bench of this Court headed by the Hon’ble Chief Justice Mr. M. M. Srivastava as enunciated in Kavita Bhargava (Supra). CONCLUSION 28. M. M. Srivastava as enunciated in Kavita Bhargava (Supra). CONCLUSION 28. In summation of the aforementioned, it can be noted that the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments as cited above has categorically opined that the Courts have limited jurisdiction to exercise the powers enshrined under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, and as per the Bhartiya Sakshya Adhiniyam especially when the matters pertain to academic matters wherein the experts’ word is the last word; that the court neither has the requisite expertise nor infrastructure to go into the correctness of such decisions; that the respondent-RUHS has duly complied with and has followed the due process of conducting the examination, requesting objections and tendering reasonable justification qua the same; that the respondents in the Information Booklet, 2024 for MODDRE, 2024 have categorically stated the syllabus for the said examination wherein all the subjects studied by the candidates during their BDS graduation programme including the webinars, conferences, seminars, articles and latest publications/editions of books & articles of eminent national and international authors; that the respondent- RUHS has tendered reasonable justification qua each disputed question; that the experience of the experts cannot be overlooked, hence, this Court is of the view that no judicial intervention is warranted in the instant dispute.” Heard counsel for both the parties and perused the record. The learned Single Judge while dismissing the writ petition has relied upon the various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, wherein it has been held that the scope of judicial review is very limited with regard to the opinion of expert committee. We have also considered the fact that no allegation of mala-fide has been levelled by the appellants/petitioners in the writ petition, therefore, the view taken by the expert committee cannot be interfered. We have also considered the fact that as many as 4299 candidates appeared in the examination and out of which 2900 candidates have been selected and appointment orders have already been issued to them. We are in complete agreement with the view taken by the learned Single Judge, therefore, no interference is called for in the present appeal. In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed.” In that view of the matter, this appeal is dismissed in view of the judgment passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this court in the matter of Dr. Lipsa Meena (supra).