By the Court.—The petitioner, who had responded to the advertisement issued by the U.P. Public Service Commission, Allahabad (the Commission) inviting applications for appointments of Civil Judges (Junior Division) in the U.P. Judicial Service, has challenged the key answers published by the Commission for Question No. 45 of General Knowledge (First Paper) - ‘C’ Series as also Question Nos. 10 and 21 of the Law (Second Paper) - ‘C’ Series of the preliminary examination 2015.

2. The selections are made after holding a preliminary examination and then a main examination followed by interviews. The preliminary examination was conducted by the Commission on 6 September 2015. The preliminary examination consisted of General Knowledge and Law Papers. It was objective in nature, each question containing four options out of which one option had to be selected by the candidates as the correct answer. The General Knowledge paper was of 150 questions carrying one mark each, while the Law Paper contained 150 questions carrying two marks each. Thus, the total marks of General Knowledge were 150 while that of Law Paper were 300. The result of the preliminary examination was declared on 29 September 2015.

3. Initially, the key answers of the aforesaid papers were displayed on the website of the Commission from 12 September 2015 and objections were invited from candidates. In order to examine the objections, two separate subject expert Committees were constituted by the Commission. The Expert Committee, after considering the objections raised by the candidates, deleted certain questions and marks have been awarded to them on the basis of a formula which is as follows:

4. The petitioner, who belongs to the general category, obtained 70 marks in General Knowledge Paper and 230 marks in Law Paper. Thus, in total he obtained 300 marks whereas the cut off mark for the general category was declared as 301. The main examination was conducted by the Commission on 29 October 2015 and the petitioner was permitted to appear at the main examination in view of the interim order dated 15 October 2015. The Court has been informed that interviews are being conducted.

5. The petitioner has raised doubts on the answers to Question No. 45 of General Knowledge paper and Question Nos. 10 and 21 of Law paper- ‘C’ Series. Question 45 of General Knowledge (First Paper)-’C’ Series with the four options is as follows:

“45. Badrinath is located in

(a) Kumaun Himalaya

(b) Central Himalaya

(c) Himadri

(d) Trans-Himalaya”

6. The Commission had earlier declared option ‘(a)-Kumaun Himalaya’ as the correct answer to Question No. 45 of the General Knowledge Paper but subsequently the Expert Committee constituted by the Commission to examine the objections submitted by the candidates who had appeared in the preliminary examination, modified it to option ‘(b)-Central Himalaya’.

7. The contention of the petitioner, who has appeared in person, is that option ‘(a)-Kumaun Himalaya’ which was earlier declared by the Commission is the correct answer and option ‘(b)-Central Himalaya’ which was subsequently modified by the Commission is not the correct answer.

8. The Commission has produced the report submitted by the Expert Committee after examining the objections raised by the candidates. This report mentions that after the separation of Uttarakhand from Uttar Pradesh, the Central Himalaya in Uttarakhand has been divided into two (i) Garhwal Himalaya and (ii) Kumayun Himalaya. Since Badrinath is located in Chamoli District of Garhwal Himalaya which forms part of Central Himalaya and Central Himalaya includes Kumaun Himalaya, Garhwal Himalaya and Himadri, the nearest correct answer is Central Himalaya.

9. This report has been seriously disputed by the petitioner and it is sought to be contended that Badrinath falls in Kumaun Himalaya and not Central Himalaya. In support of his contention, the petitioner has placed reliance upon certain books namely, ‘Bhugol - Ek Samagra Addhya