JUDGMENT :

Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, J.

1. The issue raised in these writ petitions relating to answer key stands already decided by this Court in the case of Neha Salodia vs. State of Rajasthan & Others, SBCWP No. 15089/2020 decided on 7.1.2021, wherein this court held as under:-

"The petitioner by way of this writ petition challenges the revised answer key which has been published after obtaining objections from the concerned participants, alleging that objections raised by the petitioner has not been considered properly and the answer of question No. 10 was wrongly left to be corrected and another question was also not deleted while revising the answer key. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the answer to question No. 10 ought to be deleted as none of the answers were correct. Learned counsel submits that all options in the question were incorrect and in support thereof, learned counsel has placed some certain excerpts of the third Edition of Jodhrajkrat Hameer Raso to submit that the name of Ranthambore as per Hameer Raso was not Ranastambhapur which has been treated as correct option by the respondents. Similarly another question answer options were wrong and it should have been deleted. I have considered the submissions.

This court finds that firstly this Court would not be in a position to become a historian and correct answers at its own level. Admittedly, the respondents have invited objections and thereafter on the basis of recommendations have deleted several questions-- answers in the answer key. The view of the experts cannot be substituted by this Court.

The aforesaid issue has already been decided by this court in the case of Nidhi Yadav & Another vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others, SBCWP No. 11840/2019, decided on 18.10.2019 wherein this court has held as under:-

"In view thereof, sanctity has to be given to such examination and such result are not required to be lightly interfered. In the case of HP Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur & Ors. rendered in AIR 2010 SC 2620 it was held:

"19. In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter-se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for respondent No. 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to law. Had it been other subjects like physics, chemistry and mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court."

The same view was expressed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Vikesh Kumar Gupta & Another vs. The State of Rajasthan & Others, Civil Appeal Nos. 3649-3650 of 2020 decided vide judgment dated 7.12.2020 wherein it was held as under:-

"13. A perusal of the above judgments would make it clear that courts should be very slow in interfering with expert opinion in academic matters. In any event, assessment of the questions by the courts itself to arrive at correct answers is not permissible. The delay in finalization of appointments to public posts is mainly caused due to pendency of cases challenging selections pending in courts for a long period of time. The cascading effect of delay in appointments is the continuance of those appointed on temporary basis and their claims for regularization. The other consequence resulting from delayed appointments to public posts is the serious damage caused to administration due to lack of sufficient personnel."

Even otherwise, prima facie, this Court finds that the petitioner has placed the excerpts relating to the third Edition which is not original edition as written by Hameer Rao known as Hameer Raso. This third Edition as per the Editor is the revised Edition written by Jodhraj and Shivnath thereto word used is Ranthambh. Thus, the answ