MMJ IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION (L) NO.763 OF 2010 Dr. Priyadarshani M. Pimple & Ors. ..Petitioner vs. State of Maharashtra & Anr. ..Respondents Mr. V. M.Thorat for the Petitioner Mr. M.D. Naik AGP for the Respondent/State CORAM : J. N. PATEL & A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATE : 13th APRIL, 2010 P.C. : 1. Heard. 2. This petition has been filed by the petitioners-candidates to seek admission to the Post Graduate Course in the faculty of Medicine. They have impugned the result of PGM-CET-2010 conducted by Respondent No.1. By this petition, the petitioners are seeking directions to the respondents-competent authority to place before this court the question paper containing 300 questions, key answers to all 300 questions and key answers to version Nos.11, 22, 33 and 44 and further direct the respondent-competent authority to declare the result after taking into consideration the correct key answers placed before this court for Version Nos.11, 22,, 33 and 44 and not commence selection procedure pending the final hearing and disposal of this petition. 3. The respondent Nos. 1 & 2 have filed their affidavit in reply of the Director, Medical Education and Research, wherein the respondent Nos.1 & 2 have denied all the allegations made in the petition. 4. In order to satisfy ourselves, on 9-4-2010 we have directed the respondents to constitute a committee of two senior teachers other than those who had participated in evaluating the marks given to the petitioners in PGM-CET examination. Accordingly, the respondents have constituted a committee of two teachers and have submitted the verification report. According to the conclusion arrived at by the Committee of two teachers, it has been found thus: “1. The Committee throughly cross checked the original documents/records provided by the Competent Authority. 2. The Committee step by step has verified generation of result and preparation of the merit list of PGM- CET-2010. 3. The Committee concludes that there is no mistake/error committed in generation of PGM-CET 2010 result. 4. The marks allocated to all seven petitioners by Competent Authority are found correct, hence there is no change in marks or merit list.” 5. We have no reason for discarding the report of the Committee constituted pursuant to the directions of this Court. We find that, the petitioners have been properly assessed. There is no reason for this Court to interfere with the results of PGM-CET conducted on 24-1-2010 by the respondents-Competent Authority. 6. It is made clear that the exercise undertaken by this Court of directing the respondents to constitute a Committee for verification of re-evaluation of marks given to the petitioners in PGM-CET-2010, should not be treated as a precedent for future. 7. The petition is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. 8. The verification report which is confidential, is returned to the respondents with a direction to preserve the same till the admission to PGM course is finalised. ( J. N. PATEL, J.) ( A.P. BHANGALE, J.)