IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWPs No. 1273, 1277, 1283, 1442, 1477 & 1480 of 2011. Decided on: 6th April, 2011. 1. CWP No. 1273 of 2011. Abhishek Thakur. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 2. CWP No. 1277 of 2011. Ankur Dwivedi & anr. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 3. CWP No. 1283 of 2011. Seema Sharma. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 4. CWP No. 1442 of 2011. Girish Kumar. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 5. CWP No. 1477 of 2011. Pawan M. Kaundal. Vs. State of H.P. & others. 6. CWP No. 1480 of 2011. Aanchal Rehalia. Vs. State of H.P. & others. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice V.K. Ahuja, Judge. For the petitioners : Mr. Ajay Mohan Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Addl. AG and Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondents No.1,3 & 4. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ 2 Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The grievance in these writ petitions pertains to the conduct of entrance test for admission to PG Courses. It is unfortunate that every year after the examination, students challenge the key answers and as can be seen from the exercise undertaken by the Moderation Committee itself, successfully in many cases. That would indicate that there is no serious application of mind while setting the question papers. It is for admission to PG Courses. Therefore, there should have been a foolproof approach. We may vehemently observe that in the case of such mistakes, the mistakes which are commonly repeated hereafter, we may have to take a serious view of the matter to the extent of even imposing liability on the person, who sets the question paper and others who are responsible for the same. Though normally the Court would not be embarking upon the roving enquiry as to the correctness of the answers, in a situation where it is shown that the answer given is demonstrably wrong, leaving out the inferential process of reasoning or process of rationalization, the Court has to look into it as held by the Supreme Court in Kanpur University vs. Samir Gupta, (1983) 4 SCC 309 and followed in Secy. W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education vs. Ayan Das and others, (2007) 8 SCC 242. 2. Having gone through the answers with reference to the prescribed Text Books, we find that in the case of following 3 questions, the stand of the University is demonstrably wrong as can be seen from the prescribed Text Books. As far as Question No. 53 is concerned, going by the prescribed Text Book, the answer can only be “A”. As far as Question No. 81 is concerned, the answer can only be “D” and as far as Question No. 151 is concerned, the answer can be “A & B”. We are informed that Question No.98 has already been deleted. As far as Question No.164 is concerned, the question reads as follows: “Zintraocular lens usually produces magnification of.” Even according to the Moderation Committee, there is no term as Zintraocular lens. The term is only intraocular lens. If that be so, the question is wrong. There is no question of understanding the term as intraocular lens. Therefore, it is only just, proper and reasonable that the wrong question is deleted. Therefore, there will be a direction to delete Question No.164. 3. Though learned counsel for the petitioners made a vehement attempt to argue as far as other questions are concerned, it is brought to the notice of this Court by the University that the petitioners had not challenged those questions before the Moderation Committee within the prescribed time. It is clearly stipulated in the prospectus itself that those candidates who have any dispute with regard to the key answers as published, they should bring the same to the notice of the University on or before 21st 4 February, 2011. Therefore, it will not be proper for this Court to go into those questions, which are now brought to the notice of this Court, which the petitioners did not challenge before the Moderation Committee, as prescribed in the Prospectus. 4. The writ petitions are hence disposed of directing the University to undertake the exercise of revising the answer sheets in the light of what has been held above. 5. In view of the disposal of the writ petitions, the pending applications, if any, are also disposed of. A copy of this order, duly authenticated, shall be supplied to the learned counsel. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 6th April, 2011. (Justice V.K. Ahuja), (tr/vt) Judge.