Neutral Citation No. - 2025:AHC:51092 Court No. - 4 Case :- WRIT - A No. - 97 of 2025 Petitioner :- Ravikant Yadav Respondent :- Union Of India And Another Counsel for Petitioner :- Shitlesh Pandey,Shivendra Nath Singh Counsel for Respondent :- A.S.G.I.,Amrish Sahai Hon'ble Ajit Kumar,J. Heard Shitlesh Pandey, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Amrsih Sahai, learned counsel for the respondents. By means of present petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus to command respondent to allot two marks to the petitioner of his total marks on the basis of first answer key published by respondent no. 2, in which the answer of question no. 12 was correctly opted in the multiple choice question test held by respondents. Learned counsel for the respondents was directed to obtain instructions in the matter and learned counsel for the respondents has obtained instructions in the matter and placed the same before this Court, which are taken on record. As per instructions, though in the provisional answer key that was published, it showed correct option of question no. 12 as option no. 4 but when the objections were invited and objections were filed a body of expert was constituted to examine of objections that were raised and it found option '1' as answer to be correct one to question 12 and hence final answer key came to be published. It is for this very reason, petitioner could not be awarded marks in respect of question no. 12 . Meeting the argument advanced by Sri Sahai, Sri Pandey submits that the day final answer key was published, final result was also published and hence petitioner had no occasion to file objection. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the records and the instructions that have been placed before the Court today, I find that petitioners option to question no. 12 being correct in the provisional key that was subjected to examination by body of expert upon the objection being and in expert opinion of body of experts opinion of option '1' was held as correct answer. In the considered view of the Court, experts of field if have arrived at a conclusion after evaluation that particular option would be a correct answer to a question, this Court cannot sit in appeal over opinion of such body of expert, both for the reason that ultimately finality is to be attached to the selection process; and once procedure has been adopted as was prescribed for, inherent power under Article 226 of the Constitution may not be involved to interfere with selection process in absence of any mala fide or arbitrariness and consequently , the Court does not enjoy such skill and expertise of particular specialized field or subject matter so as to give its own overriding view. In identical set of facts, this Court has already refused to grant indulgence in the matter in the case of Arjun Pal v. Union of India through its Secretary, Ministry Personnel, Public Grievances & Pension Department of Personnel and Training, Staff Selection Commission (Hq), Block No. 12 Cgo Complex Lodhi Road, New Delhi and 2 Others, being Writ A No. 1150 of 2025 vide order dated 30.2.2025 and I do not find any justification to take a different view. The respondent have followed the procedure prescribed and I find no mala fide and malice in law otherwise to interfere with selection process. Petition is held devoid of merits and is accordingly dismissed. Order Date :- 8.4.2025 Sanjeev Digitally signed by :- SANJEEV RANJAN High Court of Judicature at Allahabad