judges can be equated with Question No.99 of the preliminary examination for civil judges. In our view, the correctness or otherwise of the answer, as per key, to question No.99 has to be tested in isolation and not by comparing it to question No.36 in the preliminary examination for district judges. When Question No.99 is examined, it appears that it relates to a person who is currently employed as a watchman at the factory. This person is in occupation of the factory quarters and the charges for such occupation are deducted from his salary. In that fact situation, the answer key provided that option 'A', which is “the fee deducted would come with the definition of rent'”, is the correct answer. The judgments of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, which were referred to and relied upon by the learned counsel for the third Respondent, are to the effect that the existence of the legal relationship of landlord and tenant would depend upon the nature of the relationship and whether interest in the property is transferred to the occupant. Given the fact situation in Question No.99, we are of the view that it is plausible to conclude that there is a landlord-tenant relationship between the watchman and his employer. Consequently, the Petitioner has failed to demonstrate that the answer key is clearly or patently incorrect. Once it is concluded that option 'A' is a plausible answer, we are of the opinion that no interference is warranted in the exercise of discretionary jurisdiction.
