IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No.1074 of 2011 Decided on: April 6, 2011. Rohit Bhardwaj and another …….Petitioners. Versus State of H.P. and another …….Respondents. _________________________________________________________________ Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners : Ms.Jyotsna Rewal Dua, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr.R.K. Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr.Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General for respondent No.1. Mr.B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) Writ petition is filed with the following prayers: “1) For issuing a writ of Certiorari for quashing the result of entrance examination HP MDS (Masters in Dental Surgery) session 2011-2014 held on 10.2.2011 enclosed at annexures P-2 and P-3. 2) For sending the question paper and the key answers in question in the writ petition to another expert for checking the questions as well as their answers. 3) For issuing Mandamus to the respondents to award marks to the petitioners for questions no.36, 76 and 88 in terms of submissions made in the writ petition.” 2. Learned counsel for the respondent University, inviting reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. Ayan Das and others, (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 242, submitted that only if the petitioners satisfy the court that the model answer is different from what has been adopted by the Moderation Committee, the Court 2 can look into the matter. It was further contended that the petitioner should be in a position to show that the answers are wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. We have no quarrel with this well settled principle. However, it is the contention of the petitioners that the answers can be demonstrated to be wrong to the extent that no reasonable body of well-versed people in the particular subject would regard them as correct having regard to the position in the authenticated and prescribed text books. 3. In view of the submissions, as above, this Court on 1st April, 2011, passed the following order: “The materials furnished by the petitioner will also be referred to the Moderation Committee and their response, particularly, as to the consistent answer in All India Entrance Examination, will be furnished to this Court on 6.4.2011.” 4. The Moderation Committee has made available the report in a sealed cover. We have gone through the records, thus furnished to us by the Moderation Committee. 5. Question No.36 reads as follows: “ Early fusion of the coronal suture results in (A) Brachycephaly (B) Oxycephaly (C) Trigonocephaly (D) Scaphocephaly” 6. According to the Moderation Committee, as per the prescribed text book, the answer can be both ‘A’ and ‘B’, though the petitioners vehemently contended that the answer can only be ‘A’, since Oxycephaly can also be owing to any other features also. But the fact remains that early fusion of the coronal suture can result in both Brachycephaly and Oxycephaly. There cannot be any dispute to that proposition. No doubt, as contended by the petitioners, Brachycephaly is the result only of early fusion of the coronal suture. But as 3 already stated above, early fusion of the coronal suture can result in Oxycephaly as well, though there may be other reasons. Therefore, as suggested by the Moderation Committee, ‘A’ and ‘B’ are the answers. 7. Question No.76 reads as follows: “ “Hopewood” house study is on (A) people eating large amounts of sugar. (B) people eating small amounts of sugar (C) people not exposed to sugar (D) people eating moderate amounts of sugar” 8. According to the Moderation Committee, the answer is both ‘B’ and ‘C’. Here also, the vehement contention of the petitioners is that “Hopewood” study is only in respect of people eating small amounts of sugar since there is a rigid restriction of refined carbohydrate and there is only occasional serving of nuts and sweetening agent such as honey. So, it is not a case of people eating large amounts of sugar. That is ruled out. It is not a case of people eating moderate amounts of sugar since there is no supply of moderate amount of sugar in the diet. Therefore, ‘D’ also is ruled out. Since there is occasional serving of nuts with the sweetening agent of honey, as rightly contended by the petitioners, it is a study of people eating small amount of sugar. But quite logically ‘C’ also is correct since it is a study of people not exposed to sugar as there is no regular supply of sugar in the diet. Therefore, both ‘B’ & ‘C’ are correct. 9. Question No.88 reads as follows: “Periodontal infection is characterized by increased sulcular levels of (A) Interleukin (B) TNFß (C) IL-2 (D) None of the above” 10. According to the Moderation Committee, the answer is ‘A’. But going by the explanation to the answer, it is quite clear that ‘A’ is also not the 4 answer. It is stated in the explanation that “Interleukin is a broad term and includes all the Interleukins.” It is also stated by the Moderation Committee that Interleukin-2 also cannot be correct. It is further stated in the explanation that the correct answer to the question is Interleukin-1. Reference to page numbers 239, 300 and 346 would also show that the only answer is Interleukin- 1. Therefore, the answer can only be ‘D’ i.e. “None of the above”. Apparently so, only the Moderation Committee has also stated that ‘the best choice is A ’. If the correct answer is admittedly Interleukin-1 and not interleukin-2 or TNFß and if there is a choice as ‘none of the above’, necessarily, there could only be one answer that all the three answers ‘A’, ‘B’ & ‘C’ are incorrect and in the absence of correct answer, the answer to the question could only be the next choice i.e. “None of the above”. Therefore, the answer to question No.88 is ‘D’. 11. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of directing the respondents to revise the answer key and redraw the merit list accordingly. It is also made clear that the errors, if any, which have crept in the computer programme, will also be corrected. 12. In view of the disposal of the writ petition, the pending application(s), if any also stand disposed of. Dasti copy. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice April 6, 2011 (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tilak/pankaj) Judge.