S.K.Gangele, J:-

All these appeals have been heard together and have been disposed of by this common order. For the purpose of description of facts, the facts mentioned in W.A. No.233/2012 (Chanchal Modi v. State of M.P. and another) have been taken into consideration.

2. All these connected appeals have been filed by the candidates, who appeared in written examination conducted by the respondent Public Service Commission to the post of Assistant District Prosecution Officer, but could not get selected.

3. The appellants pleaded that they had answered some of the questions correctly, however the Public Service Commission (PSC) prescribed wrong model answers due to which the appellants could not get proper marks and their marks had also been reduced on account of negative marking.

4. The Writ Court dismissed the writ petitions filed by the appellants on the ground that the answers were examined by the experts appointed by the PSC. If there was any defect of answers, it was applicable to all the candidates, hence, no interference is warranted.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the answers prescribed in the model answer sheet by the PSC in regard to some qu