Hon’ble Sudhir Agarwal, J.—The factual and legal dispute being common, as agreed and requested by learned counsel for parties, all these writ petitions filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India have been heard together and are being decided at this stage, under the Rules of the Court, by this common judgment.

2. Petitioners are candidates having appeared in written test conducted for selection for the post of Trained Graduate Teachers (Social Science). The Selection has been held by respondent No. 2, U.P. Secondary Education Selection Board (hereinafter referred to as “Selection Board”). Result was declared on 18.6.2010. The interview thereafter was held between 16 to 26 July 2010. The final result was declared on 14.9.2010 which consists of marks obtained by candidates in written examination and interview.

3. The dispute relates to the correctness of key-answers in respect to six questions of History and one of Civics. The question papers consist of multiple choice questions. The respondent No. 2 awarded marks testing the correct answers of candidate according to key-answers prepared by it. It is not in dispute that all the petitioners were declared successful in written test and called for interview but they have suffered in final list due to preparation of merit which consists of the total marks of written test and interview, as alleged on account of wrong assessment of their answers in regard to seven questions, by Selection Board for which either multiple choice given or key-answers maintained by Selection Board were incorrect.

4. On behalf of respondents it is not disputed that Selection Board made advertisement No. 1/2009 on 15.1.2009 advertising a large number of vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers in 14 subjects which included Social Science. It had advertised 532 vacancies of Trained Graduate Teachers in boys group and 72 vacancies in girls group. Out of 532 vacancies, 140 were reserved for Other Backward Classes, 255 for Scheduled Caste and 1 for Scheduled Tribes while in the girls group, 22 were reserved for Other Backward Classes and 25 for Schedules Caste. All other facts are not in dispute except the allegation that alleged seven questions have been assessed wrongfully which fact has been seriously disputed by respondent-Selection Board.

5. The scope of adjudication in these cases is therefore very limited. It is no doubt true that in education matters, where selection is conducted under aegis of experts in subject, or by a body considered to be expert in the matter, interference in judicial review is extremely limited. The Court would not normally interfere with the opinion of experts unless it is shown that in a particular case such opinion is ex facie perverse, not supported by the documents accepted widely by all experts of high standard and accuracy, or that decision is otherwise such as no person having ordinary prudence and common knowledge in the subject would have arrived at.

6. The questions which are disputed in this case are multiple choice questions relating to History and Civics in respect whereto any person having general common knowledge may give correct reply. Therefore, if perversity in the answers of said questions has been committed which has resulted in depriving an otherwise able and well conversant candidate, it is difficult to desist a Court of law not to interfere in that matter else it would result in a sheer arbitrary kind of selection denying equal consideration for employment to the candidates concerned. The Court normally does not enter in the territory of judging correctness of opinion of experts except when there is a glaring error going to the extent of perversity or a blunder on the part of selection body in preparing key-answer sheet of multiple choice questions which has caused discriminatory treatment to the candidates.

7. Though respondents have filed counter-affidavit but on this aspect they have opted to refrain from giving any specific reply. Instead