JUDGMENT :

1. Heard Shri Ashok Khare, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Shri Alok Dwivedi, learned counsel for the petitioner and Shri G.K. Singh, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Shri M.N. Singh, learned counsel for the Commission.

2. Present writ petition has been filed for the following relief:-

"I- To issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 and 3 to produce Answer Book of General Knowledge Paper of U.P. Judicial Service Civil Judge (Junior Division) Examination 2022 of the petitioner bearing Roll Number 026678 and registration number 40500170728.

II- Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus commanding the respondent no.2 and 3 to suitably place the petitioner in final list dated 30.08.2023 (Annexure No.7 to this writ petition) after considering the answers of Question No.9 (a), (b), (d), (e) & 10 (D)(i) of the petitioner as correct by awarding 6 marks in the aforesaid questions."

3. Pleadings have been exchanged and the matter heard.

4. Petitioner applied for selection under the UPPCS(J), 2022. For that Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission (hereinafter referred to as the Commission) issued the advertisement No.A-5/E-1/2022 dated 10.12.2022. Undoubtedly the petitioner qualified the preliminary examination and also the written examination. He participated in the interview test as well. Thereafter, final result was declared by the Commission on 30.08.2023, In that the petitioner was not successful. At that stage, the petitioner sought inspection of his answer copies for the paper General Knowledge. He was allowed the inspection on 22.11.2023. In the course of that inspection, amongst others the petitioner discovered that he had been awarded zero marks against his answer responses to Question No.9(d) and Question No.10(D)(i), though he had answered those questions correctly. It is the case of the petitioner that he ought to have been awarded two marks against Question No.9(d) and one mark against Question No.10(D)(i). By awarding zero marks, the petitioner has been awarded three marks less. Since the cut-off for the general category was 590 marks whereas the petitioner was awarded 588 marks, if three more marks were awarded to the petitioner, the petitioner would have been selected.

5. As to the relief, it has been submitted that 10 posts are still lying vacant. Therefore the petitioner may be accommodated against one of the existing vacancies without disturbing the last selected candidate under the general category.

6. Other submissions have also been advanced, with respect to less marks awarded to the petitioner for his answer responses to Question No.9(a), (b), (e). According to the petitioner his answer responses were entirely correct. Therefore he ought to have been awarded 2 marks each for those answer responses in place of 1 mark each, awarded.

7. On the other hand, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Commission would contend, evaluation of answer responses and award of marks falls within the expert domain of the Commission. The Courts may always refrain from reaching any judgment as to the correctness or otherwise of the evaluation of the answer responses and consequential marks awarded by the Commission.

Therefore in the first place, he would submit, there is no room to contend that less marks were awarded to the petitioner for his answer responses to Question Nos. 9(a), (b) and (e).

8. As to the answer responses to Question No.9(d), it has been submitted, instead of answering that question in 10 words as indicated in the question paper, petitioner answered the same in more than 10 words. As to the answer response to Question No.10(D)(i) it has been submitted that the petitioner did not answer the same correctly.

9. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record, we find that the answer copy of the petitioner for the paper General Knowledge had been summoned under the earlier order. Today Shri M.N. Singh, has produced the same