JUDGMENT : 1. The petitioner has appeared for the Civil Judge, (Junior Division) P.T. Examination advertised vide Advertisement No.22/2023 which was conducted by respondent No.2 on 10.03.2024 results of which were published on 02.07.2024. 2. In this writ petition, petitioner has raised a contention that the answer given in the revised answer-key dated 13.05.2024 to Question No.82 is incorrect. According to him, Option-D is the correct answer and not Option-B, as was indicated by the J.P.S.C. in the revised answer-key. 3. The Question No. 82 in the said question paper reads as under: “ QUESTION: Which of the following inter alia, is true about release of accused under Section 169 of Cr.P.C 1973? A. Accused may be released, if upon an investigation it appears that there is not sufficient evidence for commission of an offence B. Accused may be released, if upon an investigation it appears that there is not reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate. C. Accused may be released with or without bond to appear, if and when so required before a Magistrate D. All of the above is correct” 4. Section 169 of the Cr.P.C. referred to in the said question reads as under:- “ 169. Release of accused when evidence deficient .–If, upon an investigation under this Chapter, it appears to the officer in charge of the police station that there is not sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate, such officer shall, if such person is in custody, release him on his executing a bond, with or without sureties , as such officer may direct, to appear, if and when so required, before a Magistrate empowered to take cognizance of the offence on a police report, and to try the accused or commit him for trial.” 5. Section 169 Cr.P.C., in our opinion, deals with release of an accused by the Officer-in-Charge of a police station in the absence of sufficient evidence or reasonable ground of suspicion to justify the forwarding of the accused to a Magistrate if such person is in custody. It has thus, a limited purpose providing for release of an accused, if he is in custody,and it is not necessary to forward him to a Magistrate. It has thus, a limited purpose providing for release of an accused, if he is in custody,and it is not necessary to forward him to a Magistrate. Option-B given by J.P.S.C. which specifically mentions the words „to justify the forwarding of accused to a Magistrate? is the correct answer, and since the said words are missing in Options- A and C given in Question No. 82, the same cannot be accepted to be the correct answers. 6. The other contention raised by the counsel for the petitioner is that it was incumbent on the part of the Commission to call candidates up to 15 times of the total vacancy category- wise for appearing in the Main Examination and that this has not been done. In response thereto, the stand of the Commission is that the number of persons who qualified in the Preliminary Test Examination, who got marks exceeding the cut-off fixed for each category, did not exceed 15 times the number of vacancies, and therefore, the said rule being impossible of compliance, such number of candidates were not called to appear in the main examination. 7. We are satisfied that the reason assigned by the commission in this regard is correct and does not warrant any interference. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and is accordingly, dismissed. No cost.