The observed behavior is correct because:

1. there is actually just one DOM listener used inside jQuery internally as you can see by expanding the output of getEventListeners. This single jQuery listener routes the events to the bound elements.

2. the Elements panel Event Listeners tab shows two *elements*, not two *listeners*

On the other hand, there is an obvious discrepancy: getEventListeners output is based on the actual DOM listener function reference, but Elements panel Event Listeners tab evidently recognizes jQuery framework and reports both calls as separate listeners (and from the underlying real DOM point of view this is incorrect because the listener function reference is the same).

wox...@gmail.com, thanks for information!

>>>1. there is actually just one DOM listener used inside jQuery internally as you can see by expanding the output of getEventListeners. This single jQuery listener routes the events to the bound elements.

Agree. I thought that jQuery just bind the listener directly to the element.

>>>2. the Elements panel Event Listeners tab shows two *elements*, not two *listeners*

Well. I talked about listeners which are on the right (where there are file names and line numbers).

>>> Event Listeners tab evidently recognizes jQuery framework and reports both calls as separate listeners

Having the information that the same listener (the one bound by jQuery) will be called multiple times really helps. 
-----------

Ok. So now I understand that getEventListeners returns the only listeners which are bound directly to the DOM. And there is very helpful option "Framework listeners" in the "Event Listeners" tab, that can show listeners bound by jQuery.
So, the "Framework listeners" option (which I haven't known about) does what I need.

Actually, it'd reasonable to make getEventListeners return an additional property with framework listeners: this would solve the raised issue and make the function much more useful.

wox...@gmail.com, good point!

From the discussion in above comment#4 , this seems more like a feature request or extended functioanlity request .

@woxxom/ovkadurin-- Could any one of you confirm this , so that we can triage this.

Note : Removing Bisect-label, please add if required.
Thanks!

hdodda@chromium.org, Ok with me.

Considering this as a feature request and marking it as Untriaged to get it addressed.

Thanks..

Removing Needs-Triage-M57 label based on the above comments #2,4 & 5 and added appropriate milestone for it.