Ajay Rastogi, J. Since in all these special appeals common question of fact and law are involved, with the consent of parties, the matters were analogously heard and are decided by this present order.

Brief facts culled out from DB Special Appeal no. 1685/2012 & 42/2013 are that the Rajasthan Public Service Commission ("The Commission") issued an advertisement dated 1.5.2011 holding selection for the post of Teacher Grade II for subjects; Social Science, Mathematics, English, Hindi & Science; while the present controversy is confined to the post of Teacher Grade II (Social Science and Mathematics). Initially, 1494 vacancies against each subject are advertised but by corrigendum dated 24.2.2012, the vacancies, are increased to 2373 for each subject and the appellants being eligible for the post of Teacher Grade II (Social Science/Maths) submitted their application and participated in the selection process. The written examination was conducted by the RPSC in December 2011 for all the five subjects of Teacher Grade II and the result was declared on 6.3.2012.

2. It has been alleged that names of the appellants found place in the select list published on 6.3.2012 in their respective categories on the basis of cut off marks declared by the RPSC in subjects Social Science and Maths.

3. Immediately, after declaration of result of written examination, certain writ petitions came to be filed before the learned Single Judge of this Court raising grievance that certain questions were having wrong answers or more than one and some questions were not properly framed and that has not been properly looked into by the RPSC and such of the writ petitions in relation to the post of Teacher Grade II to which the present controversy is concerned are CWP No. 12256/2012 Munna Meena v. RPSC & Others in regard to subject Social Science and CWP No. 12964/2012 Rajesh Kumar v. RPSC & Others in regard to subject mathematics.

By general order without examining merits all such writ petitions came to be disposed of by the learned Single Judge granting liberty to the writ petitioner to make representation to the respondent Commission giving out details of such questions/wrong answers if any duly supported with the relevant material in support thereof, at the same time, the Commission was directed to consider representations and if needed to constitute an independent Expert Subject Committee to examine the matter and decide such representation within the period of one month. Such stereotyped order was passed by the learned single Judge in all the subjects including Hindi, English, Science and made it open to the Commission to decide such representation, if made, by the expert committee, if so needed.

4. It reveals from the record that pursuant to such order passed by the learned single Judge disposing of the writ petitions as indicated above, the Commission sent all 32 representations in Social Science and 13 in Maths including objection regarding some question of paper general knowledge common for all the subjects including Social Science and Maths received by that time to the subject expert committee constituted by the Commission and as per the expert committees report in A Series questions no. 31, 39, 40 were deleted and the result of questions no. 57, 61, 110, 119, 124, 142 and 147 was changed in the final key, details of which was provided in the final key as Annexure R-1/1.

5. As regards, paper of General Knowledge, Expert Committee suggested to delete question no. 91, 95 and 100 and question no. 20 was deleted earlier itself. The copy of final key was published and placed on record as Annexure-R-1/2 and this was the mechanism adopted by the Commission.

6. The recommendations made by the Subject Expert Committee were approved by the Commission and revised select list was accordingly published on 20.9.2012 and some of the applicants who were shown to be selected by the Commission in the result initially declared on 6.3.2012 when their names did not find place in the revised select list dated 20.9.2012, they raised their objections regarding change in the select list declared by the Commission on 20.9.2012.

7. It is relevant to record that before there could be a publication of second revised select list dated 20.9.2012 of candidates such of the candidates who appeared in the written examination filed writ petitions no. 13393/2012 and 12739/12 & like others before the Ld. Single Judge seeking permission for inspection of OMR sheet and answer key of the post of Teacher Grade II (Social Science/Maths) and all such like petitions were decided by the learned single Judge vide order dated 5.9.2012 and 28.8.2012 directing the Commission to allow inspection of OMR sheet and answer key to the candidates namely; Pushpa Choudhary & Rajendra Prasad Raiger & others respectively.

8. However, the Commission informed both the applicants that the OMR sheet was destroyed on 11.9.2012 of the post of Teacher Grade II (Social Science & Mathematics) as per regulation of the Commission answer sheets are to be weeded out within three months after declaration of final result. Indisputably, the result was declared on 6.3.2012 and accordingly as per relevant Regulation, OMR sheet was destroyed. However, the response copy was available in the computer and that could be taken note of if any objection was raised by the applicant at later point of time. It was further averred by the Commission in Para 17 of the reply filed in CWP No. 15638/2012 that decision was taken to weed out the OMR sheets of the candidates for the post in question but since the OMR sheets were kept in the basement of the office of the Commission and due to heavy rains, the basement was flooded with water and all the OMR sheets and other records kept for the purpose of weeding out or destruction was sunk in the water. The paper sheets got stuck with each other and did not remain in good condition and it became difficult to separate the sheets from each other and also to identify and was in a destroyable position. All the answers sheets got mixed and destroyed due to water and there segregation, identification and examination are not possible to tie and it was not possible to tie out the same from the bundle.

9. The revised select list published on 20.9.2012 came to be assailed by filing various writ petitions by the petitioners and as regards subjects Social Science and Mathematics, the same can be noticed in CWP No. 15638/12 and 15647/2012 and their grievance essentially before the learned single Judge was that the revised select list dated 20.9.2012, could not be declared after the OMR sheet was destroyed and further for paper general knowledge being common for all the five subjects namely Science, Mathematics, Hindi, English & Social Science subject expert proposed changes in two questions but the revised list was published only for Social Science and Maths.

10. The bone of contention was that once appointments have been given by the Commission for subject Science, Hindi & English on the basis of the initial select list published on 6.3.2012 there cannot be any discrimination and different standards to be adopted for the subjects Social Science and Mathematics and opportunity of hearing was not afforded to the petitioners before the result could be revised and the answer key was published much after the revised select list was declared on 20.9.2012 and such action of the Commission was against the principles of natural justice as their legitimate right conferred on their names find place in the first select list published by the Commission on 6.3.2012 could not be divested in an arbitrary manner and the process adopted by the Commission after declaration of the first select list dated 6.3.2012 was in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

11. It is pertinent to record that there was no such specific averment made in the writ petitions assailing the revised select list dated 20.9.2012 regarding error in the setting up of questions papers or either of multiple answer being incorrect and it was prayed that the revised select list published by the Commission dated 20.9.2012 be quashed and set aside and appointments be made on the basis of first select list dated 6.3.2012 for the subjects Social Science and Mathematics respectively and ancillary prayer was for publication of answer key and to make available the expert committees report etc.

12. The Commission in reply filed to the writ petitions categorically averred that in all 32 representations were received for subject Social Science and 13 representations for subject Mathematics and all such representations were referred to Expert Committee which was constituted to examine the complaints received and the validated final key of all questions was placed on record along with reply and as regards the inability to make available the OMR sheets averment was made in Para 17 of its reply which has been referred to above.

13. As already stated there was no objection in either of the writ petition filed for subject Social Science & Mathematics regarding formation of any question or the multiple choice answer was not correct in the bunch of petitions filed.

14. After reply came to be filed it appears that some objection was raised by the writ petitioners regarding some alleged disputed questions for subjects like Maths and Social Science & paper of General Knowledge. It will be appropriate to quote the order of the learned single Judge dated 7.11.2012 in CWP No. 15609/2012 which reads ad-infra.

"Learned counsel for respondent-RPSC is directed to look into the dispute raised in questions of different subjects referred to above and would be at liberty to furnish material to justify the opinion of the Expert Committee or to justify their initial answer key. The respondent-RPSC, after going through the statement, if any question is found to be incorrect or having wrong answer, they would be at liberty to take appropriate decision either to delete question or correct answer so that dispute raised by petitioners can be narrow down before the next date of hearing".

15. However, when the matter came up before the Court on 3.12.2012, for instance, the learned single Judge expressed opinion regarding one of the question no. 52 of Series D of paper General Knowledge and it is relevant to quote the order passed by the learned single Judge dated 3.12.2012:

"There was dispute regarding answers of certain questions. The RPSC took expert opinion not on one occasion, but on two occasions and based on such opinion, questions have been deleted. This Court has taken note of the expert opinion to see as to whether it is eyewash or an independent opinion exists, which can depose confidence in the candidates. Without going into the details of each question, I took one of the questions and find that even as per logic given by the experts, it cannot be accepted. For illustration, question of General Knowledge at No. 52 of Series D. The question is who is the writer of "Matters of Discussion" The correct answer taken by RPSC is Mr. IK Gujaral. Learned counsel for petitioners show that name of the book is "Matters of Discretion". The expert committee has given its opinion admitting name of book as "Matters of Discretion", thus use of word "discussion", is wrong, however, it thereafter justified the answer taken by the RPSC on the ground that meaning of two words "discussion & discretion" is almost same. Such an opinion cannot depose trust on the experts because words "discussion" and discretion" cannot have same meaning in any manner. Thus, after touching one of the question of General Knowledge, learned Additional Advocate General, Shri Kumawat, was asked whether RPSC can suggest name of independent expert to get a quick and fresh report.

Learned Additional Advocate General, Shri Kumawat, prays for time to seek instruction in the matter.

Looking to the interim order, writ petitions are required to be decided at the earliest, thus same would be taken up on 5.12.2012 at 2.00 P.M. for completion of arguments and to get name of independent experts. In that regard even the petitioners may also suggest the name, but person of repute and credential in the subjects in question so that a proper report may come in regard to disputed questions. For that purpose and to show disputed questions, even a compilation was prepared, however, it is noticed that five questions have not been mentioned therein for the subjects of General Knowledge and Social Science, which may then be included so that all disputed questions and their answers may be sent to the expert. For all other questions, whatever decision has already been taken by the RPSC would be treated as final and no dispute in that regard would now be entertained. The expert would be for the papers of General Knowledge, Social Science and Maths. Accordingly, list this case along with other connected matters on 5.12.2012 for completion of further directions and arguments."

16. However, by later order dated 5.12.2012 with the consent of parties, the learned single Judge constituted subject expert committee of different subjects to evaluate disputed questions. It will be appropriate to quote the order ad infra:

"Mr. SN Kumawat, learned Additional Advocate General, has given names of experts of different subject for evaluation of disputed questions.

Learned counsel for petitioners as well as repondents have also given their suggestion thereupon mutually agreed for following names to be expert of different subjects to evaluate disputed questions which has been formulated and given in the compilations supplied to the counsel for RPSC and five more questions in the case of Suresh Kumar:

Dr. Pukhraj Arya, Associate Professor (Retd.), J.N.V. University, Jodhpur & Dr. Arvind Parihar, Associate Professor (Retd.), J.N.V. University, Jodhpur (HISTORY).

Dr. Sarla Kalla, Rajasthan University, Jaipur & Prof. S.r. Vyas, M.L.S. University, Udaipur (PHILOSOPHY).

Dr. VK Singh, Sr. Lecturer, Govt. College, Kota & Prof. P.D. Sharma, Ex-Head & Dean, Public Admn., University of Rajasthan (PUBLIC ADMINISTRATION)

Dr. LC Verma, Principal (Rted.), Ajmer & Dr. V.S. Sharma, Ajmer (GEOGRAPHY).

PROF. (Mrs.) Farida Shah, M.L.S. University, Udaipur & Dr. Deepak Mehra, Govt. Collecge, Ajmer (ECONOMICS).

Dr. B.L. Gupta, Professor (Retd.), University of Rajasthan, Jaipur, Prof. Mridula Shrivastava, Head & Dean of law College, Dr. Sudhir Bhargava, Professor (Retd.), D.A.V. College, Ajmer & Dr. S.P. Mathur, Associate Professor (Retd.), Ajmer (GENERAL KNOwledge & CURRENT EVENTS)

Dr. Narrotam Jaipal, P.G. Principal (Retd.), Beawar, Ajmer & Dr. Rashmi Jain, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur (SOCIOLOGY).

Dr. Hardayal Singh Rathore, 4A/1, Opp. V.C. Bungalow, University, Jodhpur & Prof. Shushma Shood, University of Rajasthan, Political Science (POLITICAL SCIENCE).

Prof. S.P. Goyal, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur & Prof. R.N. Jat, Jaipur (MATHEMATICS).

Prof. Meenu Aggarwal, Keshwananand Teachers Training Institute, Jaipur & Prof. Sharad Chand Prashad, Ex-Head & Dean, Department of Psychology (EDUCATIONAL PSYCHOLOGy).

The petitioners are directed to give fresh compilation to Shri SN Kumawat after adding five questions given in the rejoinder. It would thus consist of the questions earlier given in the compilation and five more questions out of rejoinder in the writ petition of Suresh Kumar. The compilation of aforesaid would then be sent to the above-named experts for their opinion as to whether out of many options given, whether any of them are correct or the question itself is not properly framed so as to delete it. The opinion of the experts may accordingly be given in respect of all the aspects raised in reference to the question given in the compilation. Looking to the interim order in the case of Rakesh Kumar, RPSC is directed to get experts opinion at the earliest and preferably within a period of ten days.

List the case on 15.12.2012 along with connected matters".

17. As a matter of fact initially there was no dispute regarding other questions referred to and at initial stage after it was noticed by the subject expert committee particularly for Social Science and Maths for which the grievance was raised and according to subject experts report, the result was revised on 20.9.2012 and still without any foundation the Ld. Single Judge was of the opinion that report of the Expert Committee constituted by RPSC is not acceptable and orders were passed for calling the name of subject Experts and the learned single Judge vide order dated 5.12.2012 after receiving the names of the subject Experts, referred the matter again for seeking their opinion and the matter was posted for 15.12.2012 and the Committee constituted by the learned single Judge to evaluate the alleged disputed questions, examined questions of subject Maths and Social Science and also of paper General Knowledge which is common for all subjects again and as it reveals that the committee constituted under order of the court submitted its report and taking note thereof all such writ petitions were disposed of by the learned single Judge under order impugned dated 15.12.2012 with the direction to the Commission to publish the revised list taking note of the experts committees recommendations but the details of the disputed question and what was to be examined by the expert committee, no material was placed either before Ld. Single Judge or before us for perusal in this regard.

While disposing bunch of petitions for declaration of revised merit list of the candidates who have participated for the post of Teacher Grade II (Social Science & Maths) it was further directed by the learned single Judge that there should not be further litigation regarding issue raised and be entertained and it will be end of the litigation and to finalise the selection but still the litigation came to the Division Bench of this Court.

18. The revised select list pursuant to 3rd subject expert committee was published on 25.12.2012 and there was again a somersault and some of the applicants whose name find place in the first select list published on 6.3.2012 followed by second list published on 20.9.2012 but their names stood deleted from the third impugned select list published under the direction dated 25.12.2012. Such of the applicants who were not party before the learned single Judge filed their separate special appeal no. 42/13 and other special appeal also filed by such of the applicants with the leave of the Court, at the same time, those writ petitioners who assailed the second select list dated 20.9.2012 before the learned single Judge and when their names did not find place in the third revised select list published on 25.12.2012 under the direction of the learned single Judge dated 15.12.2012 they also filed special appeal and one of the special appeal which has been noticed by the Court is SAW 1685/2012 and those who were selected in first and the second list or find place in the third select list published on 25.12.2012 they also filed their applications for impleadment as respondent in these appeals and were permitted as intervener. The ultimate fact is that there could not be a satisfaction of the writ petitioners unless their name find place in the select list published by the Commission assailing experts opinion until their ultimate goal of selection is achieved. The select dated 20.9.2012 was assailed while filing of the writ petitions.

19. Mr. Vigyan Shah, Advocate is representing such of the writ petitioners who initially filed writ petitions assailing second revised select list published by the Commission dated 20.9.2012 and as their name did not find place in the third select list dated 25.12.2012 published by the Commission under the orders of the learned single Judge dated 5.12.2012, filed special appeal as well.

20. Counsel submits that subject expert committee has made certain comments regarding two question of paper General Knowledge but without giving effect in other three subjects of Hindi, English and Science and appointments on the post of Teacher Gr. II are made in particular but different standards has been adopted by the Commission for subjects Social Science and Maths which according to them is in violation of Article 14 of the Constitution and all appellants/petitioners are entitled to be considered for appointments on the basis of first select list published on 6.3.2012 as this has been carried out by the Commission for recommending such of the applicants and were considered for appointment in other subjects of Teacher Gr.II. More so, when the learned single Judge also in the order impugned dated 15.12.2012 observed not to disturb such of the appointments made despite there being change in the paper of General Knowledge on the basis of expert committees report.

21. Counsel further submits that the select list as a whole could not be revised and should have been confined qua petitioners based on the comments made by the subject experts on whose instance committee was constituted pursuant to the order of the Court dated 05.12.2012 and action carried out by the Commission pursuant to the order of the learned single Judge revising the select list in rem was not required and thus there is an apparent error committed by the respondent on revising the wholesome select list as alleged impugned herein dated 25.12.2012.

22. Counsel further submits that once OMR sheet was destroyed there was no material available with the Commission to revise the select list published on 25.12.2012 it was incumbent upon the Commission to invite objections before issuing Model answer key and as the Commission failed to declare revised model answer key their legitimate right available under the law to question the same, has been denied and the response sheet could not be considered to be a substitute of OMR sheet or soft copy of the individual applicant, in absence whereof, no material was available with the Commission of the individual applicant which could be considered for revision of the select list pursuant to order of the learned single Judge and that requires to be interfered by this Court.

23. At the same time, special appeals have been preferred by such of the applicants who had participated in the selection process held by the Commission for the post of Teacher Grade II (Social Science and Maths) and whose name find place in the first list initially published on 6.3.2012 and also in the second list published on 20.9.2012 and who are not impleaded as intervener in the writ petitions and one of the special appeal filed by such of them and noticed is Special Appeal 42/2013 and after seeking leave of the Court they too have made submissions on merit.

24. Mr. RD Rastogi appearing for such of the appellants submitted that once their name find place in the Ist & IInd select list published by the Commission, certainly legitimate right was conferred upon them and that could not have been denied by the learned single Judge without affording opportunity of hearing. He further submits that those who are permitted by learned single Judge to intervene in the proceedings as intervener could not be considered representing in a representative capacity on their behalf unless the procedure of O. 1 Rule 8 Civil Procedure Code could have been complied with, in absence whereof, one can only represent in his individual capacity and merely because few of them appeared as intervener that could not be considered of being representing the class of the applicants who had participated and find place in the select list originally published on 6.3.2012 and revised on 20.9.2012.

25. Counsel further submits that agreement of individual who were present before the learned single Judge could not be considered in rem for class of the candidates like the appellants who had participated and find place in the select list and if such consent is contrary to law that could not be binding upon the individual applicant and further submits that once the select list stood revised after the matter was referred to subject expert committee and their opinion was accepted by the Commission and accordingly changes were carried out and change was given effect to by publishing the select list on 20.9.2012 thereafter their appears no justification for constituting further committee of subject experts to examine alleged additional questions under the order of the learned single Judge and this is against the principle laid down by the Apex court and so also by this Court.

26. Counsel further submits that this Court has a very limited scope of judicial review in academic matters as held by catena of decisions of the Apex Court and consistent view is that in academic matters there should be least interference and what is being observed by the learned single Judge could not be made exception to rule of law laid down by the Apex Court.

27. Mr. Rajendra Soni appearing for few of the intervener submits that his clients are such applicants who were selected as Teacher Grade II in Social Science and Maths but because of interim order passed by the Court they have been deprived to seek their appointment. However, the fact is that his clients were never aggrieved when the first select or the second select list was published on 6.3.2012 & 20.9.2012 and was never assailed by either of the intervener being represented by Mr. Soni.

28. Mr. SN Kumawat appearing for the RPSC submits that there was no justification available in constituting fresh committee of experts as directed by the learned single Judge vide order dated 5.12.2012, more so when the representations received by the Commission as regard subject Social Science and Maths were duly forwarded to the subject expert committee and after taking their report, the Commission accepted the same and accordingly revised select list was published on 20.9.2012 and that attained finality and further interference was unwarranted.

29. We have considered the submissions made by the respective parties and with their assistance also perused material on record.

The post of Teacher Grade II is included in the Schedule appended to Rajasthan Educational Subordinate Service Rules 1971 and it should be filled on the basis of qualifying written competitive examination.

30. The post of Teacher Grade II for all subjects such as Social Science, Maths, Hindi, English and Science were advertised by the Commission initially on 1.5.2011 and by later corrigendum dated 24.2.2012 vacancies were increased for subject Social Science and Maths with which we are presently concerned. However, written examination was held for Teacher Gr. II for all the five subjects simultaneously in December 2011 and result of competitive examination was declared on 6.3.2012 and as per scheme of rules, list of the candidates selected is to be recommended by the Commission to the state govt. who has to carry out to offer appointment subject to fulfillment of other conditions of service required under the Scheme of Rules.

31. As per the advertisement either of the subject Social Science/Maths contained 150 multiple choice question and common paper General Knowledge contained 100 question and each question is of two marks and as it has been pointed out to this Court that the recommendation made by the subject expert Committee initially constituted and later committee constituted by the Commission under the earlier directions of the learned single Judge on general complaints made regarding wrong answers as alleged for subject Social Science/Maths and on recommendations of expert committee as proposed questions were deleted and change was given effect to and revised select list was published on 20.9.2012.

32. The Commission in its reply filed before the learned single Judge categorically pointed out that 32 representations were received in Social Science and 13 in Maths including some questions of paper of General Knowledge in both the sets of representation from the candidates was referred to the committee of the subject experts and after the acceptance of the report by the Commission it was given effect to as being reflected from the report along with final key submitted along with reply R-1/1 and R-1/2 respectively.

33. As regards non availability of OMR sheet, it has been averred in Para 17 of reply that apart from the fact that there is a regulation to meet out necessary weeding within three months of declaration of result, but because of unforeseen circumstance due to heavy rains, answer sheet which were being kept in the basement, on being flooded with the water, have completely been destroyed and it became impossible to segregate or identify such of the answer sheets as demanded by the individual applicant. But it has been informed that the response sheet which was available with the commission in their computers still was sufficient for giving effect to and even if the OMR sheet could not have been provided to the individual applicant as demanded there might have been some confusion in the mind of individual applicant about the select list which stood revised but availability of response sheet with the Commission in the computer certainly was sufficient material for which the comments made by the subject expert in their report in deleting or change of particular question on the said material could be given effect to.

34. The writ petitions originally filed by the writ petitioners were in the nature for issue of a writ of certiorari assailing select list dated 20.9.2012 invoking Article 14 of the Constitution of India

35. Article 14 is anathema to arbitrary action and petitioners could succeed only if they show that the Commission have acted arbitrarily and unreasonably and in breach of the fundamental right guaranteed under Article 14 of the Constitution. In a challenge to action of the authorities in writ petition of this nature under Article 226 invoking the high prerogative writ of certiorari, it is not the function of this Court to sit in judgment over the correctness of the administrative or executive action. However, the Court has to examine if the decision making process has been vitiated on account of illegality, arbitrariness and mala fides both legal and/actual. In absence of these factors, the Court must refrain from interfering with the decision taken by the administrative authority, whatever its personal predictions.

36. It has been observed by the Apex Court in State of Kerala v. Fathima Seethi (1994) 6 SCC 651 ad infra:

"Judicial quest in administrative matters has been to find the right balance between the administrative discretion to decide matters, whether contractual or political in nature, or issues of social policy. Thus they are not essentially justifiable, hence, the need to remedy any unfairness. It is only such an unfairness which is set right by judicial review".

37. As regards scope of judicial review is concerned, it is not an appeal from a decision, but a review of the manner in which the decision was made and it is not the decision but the decision making process which is in question. Unless that restriction on the power of the Court is observed, the Court will under the guise of preventing abuse of power would itself, sometime be held guilty of usurping power and taking note of consistent view, Honble Apex Court in Tata Cellular v. Union of India (1994) 6 SCC 651 laid down certain guidelines binding duty of the Court in exercise of judicial review which is to be confined to the question of legality of state action & reads ad infra:

1) Whether a decision making authority exceeded its powers,

2)Committed an error of law;

3)Committed a breach of the rules natural justice;

4)Reached a decision which no reasonable tribunal would have reached

or

5) Abused its powers"

38. The principle adopted by the Court of Appeal in Associated Provincial Picture Houses Ltd. v. Wednesbury Corporation (1947) 2 All. ER 680 reiterated by the Court in England, was approved by the Supreme Court and applied in number of cases including Tata Cellular (supra). Wednesbury principle is simple "A decision of a public authority will be liable to be quashed or otherwise dealt with by an appropriate order in judicial review proceedings where the Court concludes that the decision is such that no authority properly directing itself on the relevant law and acting reasonably could have reached it".

39. Finally, the Supreme Court in Para 94 in Tata Cellular (supra) enunciated the deducible principles on the subject of judicial review as;

1)Modern trend points to judicial restraint in administrative action;

2)The court does not sit as a court of appeal but merely reviews the manner in which the decision was made;

3)The court does not have the expertise to correct the administrative decision. If review of the administrative decision is permitted it will be substituting its own decision, without the necessary expertise which itself may be fallible;

4)A fair play in the joints is a necessary concomitant for an administrative body functioning in an administrative sphere or quasi-administrative sphere. However, the decision must not only be tested by the application of Wednesbury principle of reasonableness, but must be free from arbitrariness not affected by bias or actuated by mala fides;

5) Quashing decisions may impose heavy administrative burden on the administrative and lead to increased and unbudgeted expenditure."

40. As regards the system of Multiple Choice Objective-type test, Honble the Supreme Court had an occasion to consider such situation in the judgment of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta (AIR 1983 SC 1230 ). In that case, in a situation of multiple choice questions, there was challenge to the correctness of some of the answers which were said to be the key answers. The matter was decided by the Allahabad High Court by taking a particular view. While disposing of the appeal, the Supreme Court indicated in Paragraph 18 the principle to be adopted while dealing with such matter. The Supreme Court observed ad infra:

"In a system of Multiple Choice Objective-type test, care must be taken to see that question having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer. It leave no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is yes or no. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and time decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it".

41. In a recent judgment in Mayank Bahadur v. State of MP (2010) 6 SCC 759 , the Apex Court held as under:

"In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent no.1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like Pysics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court"

42. On the basis of these judgments, following principles can be culled out:-

(1) the key answer is correct unless proved to be wrong; (2) judicial review cannot be on the basis of inferential process or process of rationalization; (3) key answer must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong; (4) answer must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct; (5) the Court should not lightly interfere with the opinion expressed by the academic experts; (6) when there is no discrimination in awarding the marks and effective of alleged wrong answer is equally on all the candidates, no interference is warranted; (7) writ Court cannot sit in judgment over those findings and examine the material on record to arrive at its own conclusion as a Court of appeal.

The law is clear that if there is a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for the petitioners only, thus, no interference is required"

43. This has also been settled by the Apex Court that in academic matters, the court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own view in preference to those formulated by professional persons possessing technical expertise and rich experience on the subject and the opinion of the expert ordinarily cannot be made subject of judicial scrutiny simply because some authors have expressed their views differently in their books or articles on the subject. Interference by the Court in such matters should be in rare and exceptional circumstances, if it is found beyond the realm of doubt that key answer published by the expert is incorrect. At the same time, even if in case there is doubt as to which of the answer is correct then too answer as accepted by the subject expert should be given preference and adhered to. This is necessary to keep the whole system of examination workable and intact and this Court always endeavor to see that examination system is not rendered unworkable by creating doubts and uncertainties.

44. In the instant case, subject experts have submitted their report indicating key answers available with the Commission duly supported with material and that was taken note of when the select list was initially published on 6.3.2012 but still after the general comments were made by the learned single Judge of this Court directing the parties to make representation having aggrieved by some of multiple choice questions. The Commission again constituted the subject expert committee and referred all 32 representations of subject Social Science and 13 representations of subject Maths and after the report from the subject expert was received revised select list was published on 20.9.2012 and obviously if there is change of answer or deletion of a question the value of the existing question has to be changed which certainly affects the select list earlier published on 6.3.2012 but after the committee examined and revised the select list on 20.9.2912, there remains no further scope of judicial review to be interfered by this Court to issue writ of certiorari u/Art. Article 226 of the Constitution of India but as being referred to, in the instant case, petitions were filed before the learned single Judge raising grievance that select list dated 20.9.2012 could not be revised without affording opportunity of hearing as their rights have been affected and OMR sheet were not made available to them & in absence of OMR sheet, result could not have been revised by the Commission and during the course of arguments some illustration have been pointed out regarding certain question and the learned single Judge taking note of one of the report regarding question no. 52 Series D of paper General Knowledge which has been referred to in the order dated 3.12.2012 ordered to constitute committees of subject expert afresh once again vide order dated 5.12.2012 with the consent of parties and what is being referred to the Committee was not taken care of.

45. In the considered opinion of this Court there was no material available before the learned single Judge in giving its opinion for constituting committee again and to refer the matter afresh to be examined by subject experts as alleged pursuant to order dated 5.12.2012. Even the interim order dated 5.12.2012 does not indicate as to what was referred to the subject expert for examination as regard the subject Social Science and Maths. Such of the opinion expressed by learned single Judge constituting in the absence of cogent material on record was against the settled principles laid down by the Apex Court referred to supra and cannot be approved by this Court more so when subject expert committee was earlier constituted by the Commission for both the subjects Social Science and Maths and report of subject expert was accepted by the Commission and accordingly was carried out and the list stood revised on 20.9.2012, at the same time, we would like to comment on the reports submitted to this Court of subject experts for sake of instance in the paper of Social Science Series A question no. 89 the key answer was 3 and which was duly supported by the relevant material and the later committee constituted by the Commission also accepted answer 3 to question no. 89 and approved by the committee but the committee constituted under the direction of this Court proposed answer choice 4 for which there was no evidence to support but still that was carried out. However, at the same time, question no. 108 of Social Science Series A choice 2 was the correct key answer which was accepted by the committees constituted initially by Commission duly supported with material but the Committee which is constituted under the direction of this Court proposed both the answers 2 and 3 and on their recommendations it was deleted but there was no material to support it.

46. Apart from the proposition of law which has already been discussed, even the expert committee constituted under the order of the Court without there being any evidence on record to support thereof gave its proposal either to delete or change the answer which was earlier proposed by the subject experts duly supported by the documentary evidence but still that was reconsidered by the committee constituted under the order of the Court. The counsel for the Commission also informed that as the selection process was already delayed, taking that impression in mind it accepted the opinion expressed by the Committee constituted under order of the Court and accordingly published the last and final select list as alleged on 25.12.2012.

47. As we have already discussed that the committee constituted by the learned single Judge to re-examine the matter afresh in totality of the subject Social Science and Maths was not in conformity with the law laid down by the Apex Court, and, in our considered opinion, such course adopted by the learned single Judge, was not permissible under the law and cannot be approved by this Court.

48. The submission made by Mr. Shah that in the absence of OMR sheet result could not be revised. Suffice it to say that OMR sheet is a hard copy but even if that was not available response sheet of the individual could be sufficient for giving effect to the change which Commission forwarded after acceptance of the report of the experts and the revised select list came to be published on 20.9.2012 and this Court does not find any fault in the decision making process adopted by the Commission in this regard.

49. As regards the submission made by counsel that after the list being initially published on 6.3.2012 and their name find place in the list, right was conferred to them, is of no substance for the reason that mere placement in the select list do not confer any right upon the incumbent and if the committees report was accepted by the Commission and was given effect to certain changes that was bound to revise the select list in furtherance thereof and unless right being conferred no opportunity of hearing to an individual was needed in the facts of the instant case, in our view, principles of natural justice has no role to play while the revised select list on acceptance of the report of the subject expert was published on 20.9.2012.

50. So far the judgment relied upon by Mr. Shah in support of his submissions reported in AIR 2012 SC 1811 , is of no assistance for the reason that it was a case where the answer key of the written examination was destroyed within few days of declaration of result of the selection and that was held to be in violation of relevant regulations but that is not the situation in the instant case. At the same time, we would like to observe that in near future the regulation which has been referred to by the Commission for weeding out the answer sheets after three months from declaration of result may be available in the ordinary course but if the litigation comes to the Court of law and brought to the notice prior thereto to the Commission it will not be justified to weed out the records in the light of their regulation and records could be weeded out or destroyed pending litigation only with the permission of the Court and not in the guise of the regulation which was taken as a shield by the Commission to support their action.

51. Simultaneously, we do not find any hesitation in holding that no fault was committed by the Public Service Commission in its action while accepting the report of the subject experts and revising the select list and published on 20.9.2012 of the selected candidates and if at all there remain a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer it was for all the candidates who appeared in the written examination and not for the appellants alone and while revising the select list dated 20.9.2012 right of the individual applicant has not been defeated and thus no interference.

52. However, before parting with the judgment this Court would like to observe:

That in future the P.S.C. should act and conduct itself more professionally. Mistakes of such kind generates unnecessary litigation and heart burning amongst candidates and loss of faith in the P.S.C. In an objective type test, multiple choice is given to the candidates, it is necessary in such cases to take extreme care to see that questions are not ambiguous. This kind of examination system merely involves the provision of marking a tick ( ) to the correct answer. There is no room for any reasoning or argument. The answer of candidate is yes or no. In that situation, the question has to be clear and unequivocal. It is also necessary to cure the defect in question papers or key answers promptly or timely so that candidates are not put to jeopardy and inconvenience. Therefore, all care should be taken in future so that such mistakes do not occur.

53. We hope that these observations are kept in mind for future examinations conducted by the Commission.

54. In the result the special appeal no. 42/2013 Raj Kumar v. State & alike others stands allowed and the order of the learned single Judge dated 15.12.2012 and the select list dated 25.12.2012 published pursuant thereto are hereby quashed & set aside.

55. The special appeal no. 1685/2012 & alike stands dismissed and the respondents are directed to make appointments of Teacher Gr.II (Social Science & Maths) strictly in terms of select list published on 20.9.2012 subject to fulfillment of other conditions referred to under the Scheme of Rules within the period of one month. No cost.

56. Special Appeal 42/2003 Allowed and that no. 1685/2012 Dismissed