CWP No. 405 of 2009 & CWP No 439 of 2009 8.7.2009 Present: Mr. J.L.Bhardwaj counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.C.Negi counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. R.K.Bawa, Advocate General, with Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra, and Mr. Vikas Rathore, Deputy Advocate General, for the respondents No. 3 and 4. Ms. Anita Dogra counsel for respondent No.6. On 23rd March, 2009 we had in our order noted that in so far as question No. 84, in the examination for MDS course for the year 2009 is concerned, the examiner had given the key answer as “D”. All the parties had submitted that the correct answer was in fact “B”. The Committee had also found that the correct answer was “B”. It was pointed out to us that even in the question paper set out in the year 2008 the same question was set out in the examination and then also the Committee set up by the Court had found that the correct answer was “B”. In view of the above, we directed the Vice Chancellor to call for the explanation of the examiner. The explanation has now been placed before us. To say the least, the explanation is extremely vague and evasive. Other than stating that in one book the answer given is “D”, the examiner has not denied that in a number of books the answer given is “B”. The examiner also states that he was not aware that any Committee was set up by the High Court in the year 2008. Therefore, it is for the Vice Chancellor to decide whether to accept the explanation of the examiner or not and whether to retain him as an approved examiner for the H.P.University or not. Before parting with this case, we feel that in the interest of justice one more direction is called for. A large number of cases are brought to this Court where challenge is laid to the correctness of the key answers published CWP No. 405 of 2009 & CWP No 439 of 2009 by the University. In the present case, in fact the same question has been repeated again with the incorrect answers. If the University takes a little more interest in the matter this situation can be obviated and litigation will also be considerably reduced. We, therefore, direct that in respect of the entrance examinations conducted by the H.P.University, in which key answers are prepared, the University immediately after the examination is held should constitute a Committee of well qualified persons in the subject concerned who should scrutinize the key provided by the examiner. In case the Committee feels that the key answer provided by the examiner is not proper it should after taken into consideration the views of the examiner give reasons for differing with the said answer. The Committee can also point out printing mistake, if any. In case more than one answer is correct the Committee can indicate so in its report. Where no answer is correct the Committee can make its recommendations in this regard also. This Committee should complete its task within three to four days of the holding of the examination and this would not delay the publication of the result. In case, such a practice is followed this would reduce if not eliminate litigation. It shall be the responsibility of the University to provide to the aforesaid Committee a list of all questions in the subject concerned which have been the subject matter of litigation and where the Apex Court or this Court has given its decision regarding the correctness of the answers. CWP No. 405 of 2009 & CWP No 439 of 2009 Once the Committee decides the key answers, it will be these key answers approved by the Committee which shall be fed into the computer for checking the answer papers of the candidates, if checking is done through computer. We would like to make it clear that these directions shall cover all examinations being conducted by the H.P.University where papers are set on multiple choice basis. We hereby direct the Vice Chancellor to ensure that necessary statutory directions in this behalf are issued as early as possible and in any event not later than 8 weeks from today. The Registrar of the University is directed to file an affidavit in this regard within eight weeks. List for this purpose on 1st October, 2009. Dasti copy. ( Deepak Gupta ) Judge July 8, 2009. (Surinder Singh) ™ Judge.