K. Vinod Chandran, CJ. – The impugned judgment directed uploading of key answers on the website of the respondent-Bihar Staff Selection Commission (for brevity ‘the Commission’), invitation of objections from the candidates with respect to the questions and answers, placing of it before a body of experts and revision of results of the preliminary examination, if any deletion or alteration is made in the questions or answers. It was also directed that again the model key answers after scrutiny by the expert body would be put in the website, in accordance with which the results would be reviewed and if no alteration or modification is required the results already declared of the preliminary test would be given effect to. There was a further direction to supply the marks obtained by the petitioners in the preliminary test.

2. The learned Single Judge, while issuing the said directions, emphasized the aspect of fairness and transparency in the process of selection based on the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanpur University and Others vs. Samir Gupta and Others; (1983) 4 SCC 309 and the consistent dismal track record of the Bihar Staff Selection Commission in its conduct of Multiple-Choice Objective Type Tests.

3. We have heard Shri Kumar Kaushik, learned Counsel for the petitioners-respondents herein, and Shri Satyabir Bharti, for the respondents-appellants; the Commission and its officers.

4. Shri Kaushik has highlighted the decision in Samir Gupta (supra), as emphasized by the learned Single Judge, which took note of the fact that there was always an option to keep the answer key secret; which, however, would be a malady worse than the disease, a disclosure would endeavour to cure; which disease is the suffering of injustice by the candidates, in silence and without any remedy. Learned counsel also placed reliance on Rishal & Ors. vs. Rajasthan Public Service Commission & Ors.; (2018) 8 SCC 81; and Harkrit Singh Ghuman vs. Punjab & Haryana High Court & Ors.; 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1111.

5. Shri Bharti, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, on the other hand, highlighted, the caution expressed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. vs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors.; (2018)2 SCC 357 by reason of the evaluation made by the courts of the answers to an objective type test, thus creating a ‘mess’ (sic), which could have been avoided by relying on the decision of expert bodies. Learned Counsel also relied on a decision of this Court in Bihar Police Subordinate Service Commission through its Secretary & Ors. vs. Ramesh Kumar & Ors.; 2019(2) PLJR 416 [:2019 (2) BLJ 459] and a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Vikesh Kumar Gupta vs. State of Rajasthan & Ors.; (2021) 2 SCC 309.

6. The subject ‘Objective Type Test’ was the preliminary test in which 1st Inter Level Combined Competitive Examination was held for 38 posts, with numerous vacancies, by advertisement dated 01.09.2014. The examinations were first scheduled from 29.01.2017 to 05.02.2017; which were cancelled. A re-test was conducted from 8th to 10th December, 2018 in two sessions per day, totaling six sessions. There were 150 questions in each session and in total there were 900 questions in each of the sessions, which were different. A total of 18,57,000 candidates applied for the test and 8,82,899 appeared for it. The successful candidates numbered 63,739 against 13,120 vacancies.

7. The sole grievance of the petitioners was that the model answer key was not uploaded on the website, which is required on the grounds of fairness and transparency. It was argued that by virtue of the directions issued in Md. Nafis Nawaz Khan & Anr. vs. The State of Bihar & Ors.; (2016) 1 PLJR 667, it was mandatory for the Commission to publish the model answer key, given opportunity to the candidates to raise objections and then have the objections considered by an expert body. It was also averred that the petitioners had approached the Public Information Officer of the