JUDGMENT :

1. Being dissatisfied with the answer key published by the respondent-Rajasthan Public Service Commission (for short-‘the RPSC')), this batch of writ petitions has been filed by the candidates who have failed to secure position in the list of candidates eligible to appear in the mains examination of RAS/RTS Combined Competitive Examination-2021.

2. Although, the matters came up on an application filed in S.B.

3. Civil Writ Petition No.13968/2021, on the joint request of the learned counsels for the respective parties, the same were heard finally at this stage on their merit and are being decided vide this common order.

4. To appreciate the factual matrix, S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.14655/2021, Khinvraj Singh & Ors. v. . RPSC is taken as the lead case. The petitioners applied for appointment in pursuance of advertisement dated 20.7.2021 in the State Services as well as Subordinate Services. The scheme of examination provides for preliminary (screening) examination, mains examination and interview. The screening test consists of one paper of General Knowledge and General Science comprised of 150 multiple choice questions of total 200 marks with a provision for deduction of one third mark for each wrong answer. The preliminary examination was conducted on 27.10.2021 and the RPSC uploaded model answer key on 3.11.2021 inviting objections thereto. The petitioners filed objections to some of the answers whereafter, the respondent has issued final answer key on 22.11.2021 which is subject matter of challenge qua some of the answers. A prayer has been made to direct the respondent to revise the result and permit the petitioners to participate in the mains examination on the strength of their merit position.

5. The respondent in its reply submitted that since the final answer key is based on expert opinion, the same does not warrant any interference.

6. Learned counsels for the petitioners assailing the validity of the final answer key qua the answers to questions no.1, 7, 31, 41, 42, 43, 45, 62, 84, 98, 105 and 122, contended that since answers to these questions are demonstrably and palpably wrong, this Court should intervene in the matter and direct the RPSC to issue revised answer key with correct answers to these questions.

7. Per contra, Mr. Amit Lubhaya, learned counsel for the RPSC reiterating the averments of the reply, contended that since the final answer key is based on expert opinion, no interference is warranted by this Court under its very limited jurisdiction.

8. Before entering into the factual vortex, this Court examines the contour of the judicial review of the expert opinion in the academic matters.

9. Their Lordships have held in the case of UPPSC & Ors. v. . Rahul Singh & Ors.-(2018) 7 SCC 254, as under:

"8. What is the extent and power of the Court to interfere in matters of academic nature has been the subject matter of a number of cases. We shall deal with the two main cases cited before us.

9. In Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and Others v. . Samir Gupta and Others-(1983) 4 SCC 309, this Court was dealing with a case relating to the Combined Pre Medical Test. Admittedly, the examination setter himself had provided the key answers and there were no committees to moderate or verify the correctness of the key answers provided by the examiner. This Court upheld the view of the Allahabad High Court that the students had proved that 3 of the key answers were wrong. Following observations of the Court are pertinent:-

"16. ...........We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct........."

The Court gave further directions but we are concerned mainly with one that the State Governm