IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA CWP Nos.977, 980 & 1004 of 2008 Decided on: July 14, 2008. CWP No.977 of 2008 Gaurav Sharma Vs. State of HP and others CWP No.980 of 2008 Ankaj Thakur Vs. State of HP and others CWP No.1004 of 2008 Neha Mohindroo Vs. State of HP and others Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surjit Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the Petitioner (s) : Mr. Lalit Sharma, Advocate in CWP Nos. 977 and 980 of 2008 and Mr. Ramakant Sharma, Advocate in CWP No.1004 of 2008. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondent No.1 and Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3 in all the writ petitions. R.B. Misra, Judge (oral) Keeping in view the prayer of the learned counsel for the parties, the writ petitions above mentioned are being disposed of at the admission stage. 2. In compliance to the order dated 11.7.2008, the relevant original record of HP-‘CPMT’ for the year 2008-09 as Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? …2… well as the re-scrutiny report by the ‘Moderation Committee’ have been produced before us for perusal. 3. It appears that the petitioners appeared in the Himachal Pradesh Combined Pre-Medical Entrance Test, 2008 and their marks were published in the newspaper. They were not satisfied by the key answers in reference to some questions which were said to be correct according to the respondent authorities. The petitioners preferred their respective representations before the respondent-University. The Vice Chancellor of respondent-University constituted an ‘Expert Committee’ for re-evaluation/re-scrutiny of the answer sheets of the petitioners. 4. In the two medical colleges of State of Himachal Pradesh, namely Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla and Dr. Rajendra Prashad Govt. Medical College, Tanda (Kangra), the total number of seats for Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, are 65 out of which 29 seats are reserved for general category, whereas, total numbers of seats for Dr. Rajendra Prashad Govt. Medical College, Tanda (Kangra) are 50, out of which 24 are reserved for general category. 5. According to petitioner Gaurav Sharma in CWP No.977 of 2008, he secured 622 marks and was placed at Sr. No.51 in the combined merit list from which the students were to be admitted in both the above mentioned medical colleges. According to him, key answers to question No.137 of Chemistry and question No.163 of Physics were not correct. According to him, as per text book of ‘NCERT’ on the relevant subjects, answers to these questions were not correct. …3… 6. Mr. Negi, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3, has submitted that the representation submitted by Mr. Gaurav Sharma was considered and the Expert Committee of the University unanimously submitted that the answers in reference to the above mentioned questions were in consonance to the text book on the subject published by ‘NCERT’ whereas, the answers given by the petitioners were not correct. 7. As regards question No.163 of Physics, learned counsel for petitioner Mr. Gaurav Sharma has fairly submitted that answer of the petitioner to this question is not appropriate. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the report of the Moderation Committee. Even if it is presumed that the petitioner is awarded five more marks for question No.137 of Chemistry, in that condition his total aggregate marks will be 627 and that will bring him at serial No.43 in the combined merit list. In that condition also, he may not be able to get admission in IGMC, Shimla. It has been brought to our notice that the petitioner by virtue of his performance and having secured 622 aggregate marks may be allocated admission in one of the medical colleges, i.e. Dr. Rajendra Prashad Medical College, Tanda (Kangra). Since substantial justice is being done to the petitioner, therefore, we are not inclined to invoke extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition (CWP No.977 of 2008) of petitioner Gaurav Sharma is dismissed. …4… 9. In CWP No.1004 of 2008, petitioner Neha Mohindroo is said to have placed at Sr. No. 33 in the combined merit list securing 632 marks. She appears to have submitted her representation indicating that key answers to questions Nos.89 and 94 of Biology are not correct and her answers to these questions are correct as they are in consonance to the description indicated in the ‘NCERT’ text book on the subject. 10. Mr. Negi, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 has submitted that the ‘Expert Committee’ of the University has found that the key answers indicated in reference to questions No.89 and 94 of Biology are correct being in consonance to the text book of ‘NCERT’ on the subject, whereas, the answers of the petitioners are incorrect. As such, marks awarded to the petitioner are correct. 11. In reference to question No.89 and 94 of Biology relating to Neha Mohindroo, we have gone through the text book published by ‘NCERT’ and after careful perusal thereof, we are of the considered view that the report of the Expert Committee is in consonance to the description indicated in the text book published by the NCERT on the subject. 12. In the facts and the circumstances of the case, we have been apprised that the petitioner, by virtue of her placement at Sr. No.33 in the combined merit list and having secured 632 marks, may be allocated admission in Dr. Rajendra Prashad Medical College, Tanda. Since substantial justice is being done to the petitioner, therefore, we are not inclined to invoke our extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Accordingly, writ petition …5… (CWP No.1004 of 2008) of petitioner Neha Mohindroo is dismissed. 13. According to petitioner Ankaj Thakur (CWP No.980 of 2008), he has secured total 588 marks and was placed at Sr. No.94 in the combined merit list. According to him, answers to question No.109 of Chemistry and questions No.163 and 179 of Physics as key answers prescribed for examiner are not correct. 14. According to Mr. Negi, learned counsel for respondent No.2 and 3, as per report of the Expert Committee answers indicated in the key answers are in consonance to the text book on the subject published by the ‘NCERT’ and the answers given by the petitioners to the above questions are not correct. 15. For the sake of assumption, if we indicate that 15 marks for three answers, as disputed by the petitioner, are awarded in his favour, event then his total marks would be 613 and he will not be able to get any benefit as he will not reach up to the stage of lowest candidate in the merit list. In these circumstances, we are not inclined to invoke extraordinary discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Therefore, CWP No.980 of 2008 preferred by petitioner Ankaj Thakur is also dismissed. 16. However, dismissal of the writ petitions shall not disentitle the petitioners if after representation, re-scrutiny or re-arrangement, their placement improves and they are allocated admission in IGMC, Shimla, keeping in view the claims of other meritorious candidates. …6… 17. The photocopies of the report of ‘Moderation Committee’ shown to us by the learned counsel representing the University are ordered to be placed on record. They shall form part of the record. In view of the dismissal of the writ petitions, all the pending applications are also dismissed. (R.B. Misra), J. July 14, 2008, (ss) (Surjit Singh ), J.