JUDGMENT :

Madhuresh Prasad, J.

The writ petitioners in these batch of writ petitions have approached this Court being aggrieved by rejection of their candidature in the selection process conducted by the respondent Bihar Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as 'the Commission). 64th Bihar Combined Competitive Examination conducted by the respondent Commission is in issue in the instant proceedings, for which advertisement was issued on 02.08.2018 for filling up total 1465 vacancies in different posts under the Government of Bihar.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the instant writ proceedings is that the petitioners applied for consideration in the process of selection. Altogether there were 4,71,145 applicants. The process of selection comprised of an objective preliminary examination comprising of 150 multiple choice questions carrying one mark each. Successful candidates to the tune of ten times the number of vacancies were to be selected on the basis of objective preliminary examination for writing the mains subjective examination.

3. The Commission for the purpose of evaluation had got prepared a model answer key by the question setters. After the preliminary examination, the model answer key was uploaded on the website on 26.12.2018 and objections were invited from the candidates who participated in the selection process. Objections submitted before the last date i.e. 07.01.2019 were considered by the expert committee constituted by respondent Commission. The expert committee modified/corrected the model answer key in respect of eight questions. In respect of three questions expert committee was of the opinion that correct answer options were not available or that the questions answers were likely to cause confusion to examinees and on such grounds three questions were deleted from the process of evaluation. The report of the expert committee, was thereafter approved by the Full Commission in its meeting dated 31.1.2019. Accordingly, answer sheets were evaluated. Result was published on 23.2.2019 declaring 19109 candidates successful in the general category who had secured the cut off marks, i.e. 97 or more.

4. The petitioners herein have not been declared successful in the examination. Admittedly all of them have secured between 1-5 marks less than cut off marks 97.

5. A joint petition was again filed by several candidates thereafter before the Chairman of the respondent Commission raising the issue regarding correctness of model answer uploaded by the Commission on the basis of which the evaluation had been done. The Chairman thereafter reconstituted the expert committee. Model answers were thus reconsidered for the second time. The reconstituted expert committee found no error or mistake in the model answer approved by the earlier expert committee.

6. Some of the candidates, who have not been declared successful in the preliminary test, are petitioners in the instant writ proceedings. It is their case that model answer key on the basis of which evaluation has been done was incorrect. It is submitted that they can demonstrate that wrong has been committed in preparation of the model answer key. The wrong options has been considered to be the correct answer in the model answer key in respect of some questions. Another infirmity alleged in the model answer key is that questions have been deleted even though correct answer options were available. By raising such grievance they submit that on account of glaring defects in the model answer key which they have urged can be demonstrated as being wrong, the result published by the Commission for the preliminary examination cannot be sustained. They have submitted that evaluation in respect of such questions is to their prejudice as they had marked the answer option which was correct, however since the option marked by the petitioners were not the correct answer as per the model answer key they have wrongly been deprived of marks for such questions. It is also the submi