IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 4769 of 2011 & connected matters. Decided on: July 12, 2011. 1. CWP No. 4769 of 2011 Shivika Mittal. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 2. CWP No. 4790 of 2011 Arpita Sharma. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 3. CWP No. 4815 of 2011 Rashi Sachar. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 4. CWP No. 4865 of 2011 Priyanka. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 5. CWP No. 4912 of 2011 Sumesh Sharma. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 6. CWP No. 5090 of 2011 Varun Malhotra. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 7. CWP No. 5128 of 2011 Shreya Mishra. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. 8. CWP No. 5136 of 2011 Ankita Sharma. Vrs. State of H.P. & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K.Sharma, Judge. For the petitioners: For the respondents: M/S. Shrawan Dogra, Vikas Rajput, Jagdish Thakur, R.S. Gautam & Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocates. Mr. R.K. Bawa, AG with Mr. J.K. Verma, Dy. AG for respondent No. 1. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) These writ petitions have been filed by the students who appeared in the Combined Pre-Medical Entrance Test for admission to MBBS and BDS courses in the State of Himachal Pradesh, during the academic year 2011-12. The prospectus provided for publication of the key-answers and also for an opportunity to the candidates to submit their objections. Those objections have 2 been scrutinized by an appropriate body in the University. The writ petitioners are still dissatisfied with the action thus taken by the University. 2. The objections are mainly on four counts: i) Certain questions are out of syllabus. ii) Multiple answers are possible for certain questions. iii) Certain questions are wholly wrong. iv) Certain questions were wrongly deleted. 3. The writ petitioners have come up before this Court in view of the demonstrably wrong stand taken by the University on some of the issues. All the above disputes were referred to a Special Moderation Committee consisting of experts. The Committee has submitted its report. There appears to be still a bit of ambiguity in respect of certain questions. Hence, we may refer to all the four points. Question Nos. 148, 157, 160, 176, 188 and 194 are alleged to be out of syllabus. It has now come out that all the questions are covered by the syllabus as prescribed by the H.P. Board of School Education, Dharamshala. As far as other objected questions are concerned, the experts have opined as follows: “Question No. 35, answers ‘B’ & ‘C’ are possible. Question No. 62, answers ‘A’ & ‘D’ are possible.” 4. Therefore, it is clarified that those who answered either ‘B’ or ‘C’ for question No. 35 and those who have answered ‘A’ or ‘D’ for question No. 62, shall be given the credit. There is no change for question Nos. 117, 176 and 196. As far as question No. 124 is concerned, it is demonstrably clear from the text- book itself that both ‘A’ and ‘B’ are the possible answers. Therefore, for all those candidates who have answered ‘A’ or ‘B’ to question No. 124, shall be given the credit. The Committee has deleted question No. 139. But, it is apparently clear from the text-book that the only answer is ‘D’. Therefore, those who have answered question No. 139 with the option ‘D’ shall be given the credit. The Committee has suggested that all answers to question No. 147 are wrong and hence credit should be given to all. What the Committee meant is only that the question should be deleted. Therefore, question No. 147 shall be deleted. As far as question No. 144 is concerned, even according to the Committee the answer is 3 ‘D’. Going by the text-book also, the answer should be ‘D’. Therefore, those who have answered question No. 144 with the option ‘D’ shall be given the credit. 5. There will be a direction to the University to re-work the answer- sheets on the basis of the clarifications made above and publish the same at the earliest. There will also be a direction to the University that in case there is any answer-sheet in which the candidate has violated the instructions in the OMR marks-sheet/answer sheets, such answer-sheets shall be rejected as is mandated in the prospectus and the OMR marks-sheet. 6. It is brought to the notice of this Court that from next year onwards, there may not be any confusion at all since All India Examination pattern is expected to be implemented from the next year. In view of the above submission, we refrain ourselves from passing any observation with regard to the conduct of the examination. 7. The Writ Petitions are accordingly disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. 8. A copy of this judgment, duly authenticated by the Court Master, shall be supplied to the learned standing counsel for the University, immediately, for communication to the quarter concerned. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. July 12, 2011. ( Justice V.K.Sharma ), (karan/vs) Judge.