Madhuresh Prasad, J. – Heard learned Senior Counsel Mr. Mrigank Mauli in CWJC No. 16181 of 2021. Mr. Niranjan Kumar, learned counsel has appeared for the petitioners in CWJC No. 11556 of 2021. Learned Senior Counsel Mr. Lalit Kishore has appeared on behalf of the Bihar Public Service Commission (BPSC) along with Mr. Sanjay Pandey, learned Advocate. The State is represented by Mr. Prashant Pratap, learned GP-2 in CWJC No. 11556 of 2021 and Mr. Vikash Kumar, learned SC-11 in CWJC No. 16181 of 2021.

2. In CWJC No. 11556 of 2021, petitioners seek quashing of result of the preliminary test dated 27.04.2021 published in the process of appointment of Assistant Prosecution Officer (APO), pursuant to Advertisement No. 01/2020. The result has been declared by the BPSC, Patna. The writ petition has been filed raising a grievance that only 3995 candidates have been declared successful in the preliminary test.

3. It is submitted that result should have been published in the ratio of 1:10 of total advertised seats, which has not been done. Petitioners, therefore, have prayed for directing the respondents to issue a fresh result of preliminary test as per ratio 1:10 laid down by the Hon’ble Apex Court in a catena of judgments. The petitioners have also questioned the marks awarded for all 6 questions of Paper-II (Law), bearing Question Nos. 63, 90, 93, 94, 97 and 100. It is submitted that the modal answers of these questions are incorrect. The petitioners, in fact, had given the correct answers but relying on wrong model answers, they have been deprived of marking for these questions and therefore the result of the preliminary test is vitiated. However, during argument, having considered the stand of the respondent-Commission in the counter-affidavit that Question No.100 has been deleted, the petitioners have confined their grievance only with respect to 5 of the remaining questions, i.e., Question Nos. 63, 90, 93, 94 and 97.

4. The petitioner of CWJC No. 16181 of 2021 also seeks quashing of the final result of the preliminary test examination and for a direction to issue a fresh revised final result of preliminary test on the same ground of result being less than the established ratio, 1:10 of total advertised seats. The petitioner also seeks direction to the respondent-Commission to issue admit card for Mains Examination in favour of the petitioner to enable him to participate in the written examination. The petitioner in this writ petition has also raised the same issue regarding the correctness of the final answer keys/modal answers for Question Nos. 19, 21, 22, 25 and 89 of Set-C question booklet.

5. When the matters are taken up today, submissions have firstly been advanced by the learned Senior Counsel appearing in CWJC No. 16181 of 2021 that the petitioner had obtained 132.265 marks as against the cut-off marks 138.750. If the petitioner’s challenge to the correctness of the modal answers of the 5 questions, noted above, is accepted, then his marks will come within the cut-off marks so as to place him in the zone of successful candidates for participation in the Mains Examination.

6. Referring to provisions of the relevant bare Acts and the decisions of the Hon’ble Apex Court, learned senior counsel has emphatically submitted that the modal answers for the 5 questions are materially wrong. He has submitted that the questions are not assailed on any inferential process, but the error is apparent. It is thus submitted the petitioner’s result should be revised accordingly and he be declared successful for participation in the mains written examination.

7. Learned counsel in CWJC No.16181 of 2021 has made similar submissions in support of his prayer assailing validity of the model answers for Question Nos.63, 90, 93, 94 and 97.

8. Learned Senior Counsel has relied upon paragraph nos.18 and 19 of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of High Court of Tripura through Registrar General vs. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee & Ors., reported in 2019 (2)