IMPORTANT POINT
Courts should not interfere in matters of expert opinion unless the key answer is patently wrong and no inferential process or reasoning is required to show that the key answer is incorrect.

JUDGMENT :

Prakash Padia, J.

1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent no.1, Shri Siddharth Singhal, learned counsel for the respondent no.2 as well as Shri Ashok Khare and Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocates assisted by Shri Ramesh Kumar Tiwari appearing on behalf of newly impleaded respondent no.4.

2. The present writ petition has been filed by two petitioners, namely, Mukesh Kumar & Sandeep Kumar for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari calling for record of the case and quashing the revised answer key dated 7.9.2022 issued by the respondent no. 3, namely, Examination Controller, Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow only to the extent of question nos. 10, 65, 86 & 90 of the booklet series 'B' and its equivalent in all other series of main examination held in pursuance of the advertisement No. 01-Exam/2022 issued by the respondent no. 2, namely, Secretary, Uttar Pradesh Subordinate Service Selection Commission, Lucknow. The consequential reliefs have also been prayed for.

3. After filing of the present writ petition, an application on behalf of the petitioner no. 2, being Application No. 2 of 2023 was filed on 18.5.2023 for dismissing the writ petition as withdrawn in respect of the petitioner no. 2. The said application was allowed, by an order dated 21.7.2023 passed by the Coordinate Bench of this Court, as such, in the present writ petition, there is only one petitioner, i.e., petitioner no. 1. namely, Mukesh Kumar.

4. The counsel for the petitioner, during the course of argument has made a statement that he did not challenge the revised answer key dated 7.9.2022, insofar as it relates to the question nos. 65, 86 & 90 of booklet series 'B'. Thus, in the present writ petition, the only challenge is to revised answer key dated 7.9.2022 only to the extent of question no. 10.

5. The facts as stated in the writ petition are that the petitioner has cleared the PET-2021, hence on the basis of his score he was shortlisted of appearing in the main examination, being conducted in pursuance of the advertisement No. 01-Exam/2022 for the post of Revenue Lekhpal.

6. The petitioner has appeared in the main examination held on 31.7.2022 which was conducted by the respondent nos. 2 & 3. The petitioner no. 1 was provided booklet series 'B' and the petitioner no. 2 was provided booklet series 'D'. Since the writ petition with regard to the petitioner no. 2 has been dismissed as withdrawn, as such, the facts relating to the petitioner no. 2 are not being mentioned, being not relevant.

7. The answer key of the main examination held on 31.7.2022 was published on 1.8.2022. In para 9 of the writ petition, it is stated that the petitioner has filed objection and revised answer key of booklet series 'B' and other series was published on 7.9.2022.

8. According to the petitioner, the dispute is with regard to question No. 10, which is as under:

9. It is stated in the writ petition that the petitioner has marked answer 'D' as correct answer, whereas in the revised answer key, answer 'B' has been treated to be correct answer.

10. Learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument has placed and relied upon an publication made by the [image] stating that answer 'D' is correct answer. In the said publication at sl. no. 9 (at page 72 of the writ petition), it is mentioned that [image] is an incorrect sentence and the correct sentence is [image].

11. Relying on the aforesaid publication, the counsel for the petitioner submits that answer 'D' is the correct answer and the publication of revised answer key holding option 'B' as correct answer is incorrect.

12. One of the candidate, namely, Krishna Pratap Singh Patel has moved an impleadment application for his impleadment as respondent stating therein that he has been selected and a conditional allotment letter has been issued to him but due to pendency of the present writ petition, he is not being allowed to join. The