Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J. - (1.) Petitioner has preferred this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for the following reliefs:- "1. The respondents may kindly be directed to award the appropriate marks to the petitioner for the question nos. 21, 34, 37 and 147 of Mathematics subject of paper Series - B and accordingly he may be declared qualified for the further selection process and further he may be granted appointment on the post School Lecturer, if he stands in merit. 2. The respondents may kindly be directed to reshuffle/organize the selection list/cut-off m arks, after awarding appropriate marks to all other candidates and in accordance therefore, they may be directed to issue fresh selection list for the post in question. 3. Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem just and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner. 4. Costs of the writ petition may kindly be awarded to the petitioner."
(2.) Learned counsel for the parties agree that the matter is squarely covered by the judgment passed by a coordinate Bench of this Court in Kuldeep N Solanki v. State of Rajasthan and Anr. (S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.4880/2015), decided on 27.02.2017. The judgment reads as follows:- "The prayer in the present writ petitions is for awarding appropriate marks to the petitioners for the disputed questions of different subjects with a further prayer to give them appointment on the post of School Lecturer, if they stand in merit. Reply has been filed. As per the reply, before declaration of the result, the answer key of the written examination was issued and objections were invited from all the affected candidates. After receiving the various representations, an expert committee was constituted for examining the disputed questions as alleged by the candidates. Thereafter, the expert committee examined the said questions and submitted its' report. Accordingly, the respondent - Commission issued amended answer key on 29.12.2014 and again objections were invited from the candidates. After receiving objections, the expert committee re-examined the disputed questions and submitted its report. Accordingly, the respondent - Commission issued the final answer key on 27.03.2015. Thus, fair and proper opportunity was given to all the affected candidates by inviting objections and representations before declaring the result and thereafter, the final result was issued on 24.03.2015. The petitioners have questioned certain questions of different subjects. The expert committee has already examined all the disputed questions and after receiving its report, the final result was declared. If any of the questions are deleted then, it applies to all the candidates uniformly and no undue benefit of the same could be given to the petitioners. The petitioners scored less marks than that of last candidate selected in their respective categories and hence, could not be selected. This Court vide judgment and order dated 08.02.2017 passed in S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 14119/2016 (Umrav Singh Charan and ors. v. The Rajasthan Public Service Commission and anr.) and other connected petitions dismissed the bunch of writ petitions in almost similar set of circumstances holding as under:- "In view of the aforesaid exposition of law, it is absolutely clear that this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction should restrain itself from exercising its power to judicially review in the decision taken by the experts in so far it relates to revised key answers in the absence of malafide. The candidates may have had a case wherein no expert committee had been constituted to go into the objections. But once, the expert committee has been formed and there is no allegation of bias or malafide, any further interference would only unsettle the settled legal position that the Courts have to show deference to the recommendation of the expert committee consisting of able and distinguished experts in the field. The view expressed by the expert committee requires to be given paramount consideration specially as there is no allegation of bias and malafides or even a whisper of extraneous consideration. In view of the above, this Court is not inclined to interfere either in the question paper or the answer keys when the correctness of all the questions has been re-examined by the expert committee. Accordingly, all the writ petitions are dismissed." It is stated that the selection is long over. The list of selected candidates has already been submitted to the State Government. Thereafter, the further selection process for the subsequent year 2015 has also been finalized. No ground for interference is made out. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed".
(3.) In light of the afore-quoted judgment, the writ petition is dismissed on the same terms.;