Hon’ble Manoj Kumar Gupta, J.—This batch of writ petitions has been filed questioning the result of the combined State/Upper Subordinate Services (General Recruitment) Examination 2016 and Combined State/Upper Subordinate Services (Special Recruitment) Examination 2016 (P.C.S. Examination 2016) conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (the Commission).

2. The petitioners are aspirants for various posts of the Provincial Services in the State. The examination is conducted in two stages. It comprises of a preliminary written examination which is in the nature of a screening test to find out suitable candidates in required proportion in each category. The marks obtained in the preliminary examination are not counted for determining the final order of merit. The candidates, who succeed in the preliminary examination, enters the second stage of recruitment, which comprises of a main written examination followed by interview/personality test. The aggregate of the marks obtained in the main examination and interview form the basis for determining the final order of merit. The Commission follows the procedure laid down under the Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (Procedure and Conduct of Business) Rules, 2011 (Rules 2011) framed under sub-section (1) of Section 11 of the Uttar Pradesh State Public Service Commission (Regulation of Procedure) Act, 1985 (the Act).

3. The petitioners have appeared in the preliminary written examination but the marks awarded to them have fallen short of the prescribed cut off marks in their respective category. They have approached this Court alleging various discrepancies in the model answer keys and the method of evaluation.

4. The screening of the candidates was held on basis of two papers of General Studies; (i) General Studies I, which was of qualifying nature and the marks obtained therein were not counted for determining the merit; and (ii) General Studies II comprising of 150 questions bearing in aggregate 200 marks, all carrying equal marks. The questions were multiple choice objective type, each having four options. The candidate has to select one of the alternatives as the correct answer. If a candidate marks two answers as correct, it was treated as a wrong answer.

5. According to the stand taken in the counter-affidavit, the Commission got prepared the key answers and notified the same on the official website of the Commission from 27 April 2016 to 1 May 2016 inviting objections against the same. In pursuance thereof, objections were received in respect of 82 questions. The objections received were placed before an Expert Panel and on the basis of their opinion, the Commission deleted five questions (question Nos. 22, 26, 30, 122 & 128) and the marks of these questions were distributed on pro-rata basis to all candidates; in respect of two questions (question Nos. 119 & 139), two options were accepted as correct answer and the Commission awarded full marks to candidates exercising any one of the choice. The Commission on the basis of the opinion of the Expert Panel, while accepting the objections in respect of certain questions, prepared a final answer key and based on the same, declared the result of the preliminary examination on 27 May 2016.

The answer books were in four series; A, B, C & D. All references in this judgment are in context of series B, which was referred to by learned counsel for the parties at the time of making oral submissions.

6. Learned counsel for the petitioners in various writ petitions have made the following submissions :

a. Several questions were wrong, compelling the Commission to delete question Nos. 22, 26, 30, 122 and 128. This has resulted in valuable time of the petitioners being wasted in attempting to answer these questions.

b. Some of the questions had more than one correct answer, leading to confusion. This was contrar