JUDGMENT

Shivaji Pandey, J. - Heard learned counsel appearing for the respective parties.

2. In the present appeals, the appellants are challenging the judgment and order dated 26.03.2019 passed in C.W.J.C. No.3670 of 2019 (Ashish Kumar Pathak and Ors. vs. The State of Bihar and Ors.) and other analogous cases, whereby and whereunder the learned Singled Judge has interfered with the report of the expert committee holding that the answers given by the expert committee with respect to four questions are incorrect and directed the Bihar Public Service Commission to constitute an expert body of members, who were not part of the erstwhile committee, to revisit the four abovementioned questions and if it is found that the answers provided by the Commission to the aforesaid four questions are incorrect, the petitioners do deserve to participate in the selection process by writing the mains examination. It has also been directed for holding of special examination in the event of their success even if it entails an additional cost, energy and time of the Commission by placing reliance on the judgment of this Court rendered in the case of Ravindra Kumar Singh v. High Court of Judicature of Patna,2016 SCCOnlinePat 260.

FACTS OF THE CASES.

3. The precise facts of this case are that in the year 2017 an advertisement no.02 of 2017 was published by the Bihar Public Service Commission for selection and appointment on the post of Assistant Engineers (Civil). Altogether, 28,874 applications were received. The Preliminary Test was held on 15th September, 2018, in which total 17,865 candidates appeared. After completion of examination, the question papers and model answers commonly known as "Key Answers" of the concerned subjects was published by the Commission in its website. Altogether, 1267 objections were received from the candidates raising objections pertaining to framing of wrong questions, wrong answers in the model answer-sheet or having more than one answer of a question. The questions were in four sets i.e. 'A', 'B', 'C' and 'D'. Apart from other objections, Md. Juned Alam, petitioner no.7 of C.W.J.C. No.3670 of 2019, raised objection with respect to answer of four questions i.e. questions no. 62, 84, 100 and 123 of Question Booklet Series "B"; Vishwajeet, petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.4663 of 2019 raised objections with respect to answer of two questions i.e. question no.65 and 104 of Question Booklet Series "D"; Ram Dutta Bharti, petitioner of C.W.J.C. No. 2654 of 2019 raised objection with respect to answer of one question i.e. question no.123 of Question Booklet Series "B" but, Sumit Kumar, petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.5100 of 2019 and Vikash Gaurav, petitioner of C.W.J.C. No.3457 of 2019 did not file any objection with regard to model answers.

4. After receiving the objections, the Commission constituted a committee of experts to examine the said objections. Altogether, answers of 15 questions were found to be wrong but, these four answers were not within that 15 answers. There were five members in the expert committee, they all were either from I.I.T., Patna, N.I.T., Patna or from B.I.T., Patna, which are reputed institutions and having not made any allegation of prejudice or biasness on the part of the experts. The full members of the Commission after receiving the report of the expert committee, applied their mind and thereafter the result of preliminary test was published. Since, the original petitionersrespondents failed to obtain the minimum cut-off marks in their respective groups, did not qualify in the Preliminary Test, led to filing of the writ petitions. The learned Single Judge made reference to the text-books of the concerned subjects relied upon by the original petitioners-respondents and arrived to a finding that the original petitioners-respondents have demonstrably proved the errors committed by the setters in giving answers to the aforesaid four questions, even the committee of experts also committed error in not correcting