IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 3466 with CWPs No.3536, 3547, 3558, 3572, 3582, 3597, 3608, 3640, 3674, 3422 and 3503 of 2010. Decided on: 5th July, 2010. For title, please see below. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Kuldip Singh, Judge. For the petitioner : See below. For the Respondents : ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) 1. CWP No. 3466 of 2010. Prateek Sharma & anr. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. For the Petitioners: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondent No.1. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 2. CWP No. 3536 of 2010. Parul Sharma. Vs. H.P. University. For the Petitioner: M/s Bhuvnesh Sharma & Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. For the Respondent: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for the respondent. 3. CWP No. 3547 of 2010. Harleen Kaur Arora. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. For the Petitioner: Mr. R.S. Gautam, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondent No.1. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 2 4. CWP No. 3558 of 2010. Amita Chaudhary. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 5. CWP No. 3572 of 2010. Kunal Malhotra. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. Ajay Goel, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondents No.1 & 2. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 6. CWP No. 3582 of 2010. Sumesh Sharma. Vs. State of H.P. & ors. For the Petitioner: Mr. Tarlok Chauhan, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondents No.1, 2 and 4. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.3. 7. CWP No. 3608 of 2010. Manish Thakur. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. For the Petitioner: Mr. G.R. Palsra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondent No.1. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 8. CWP No. 3640 of 2010. Rohit Gupta. Vs. H.P. University. For the Petitioner: Mr. Vikram Thakur, Advocate. For the Respondent: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for the respondent. 9. CWP No. 3674 of 2010. Yamini Sharma, Vs. State of H.P. & anr. 3 For the Petitioner: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondent No.1. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. 10. CWP No. 3422 of 2010. Vishal Gupta. Vs. H.P. University. For the Petitioner: Mr. D. Dadhwal, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate. 11. CWP No. 3503 of 2010. Sajal Bhota and anr. Vs. State of H.P. & anr. For the Petitioners: Mr. Shrawan Dogra, Advocate. For the Respondents: Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. J.K. Verma, DAG, for respondent No.1. Mr. B.C. Negi, Advocate, for respondent No.2. All these writ petitions pertain to various complaints regarding the conduct of CPMET Examination, the valuation thereof and the revision of the key answers. Having regard to the nature of the complaints that the revision of the key is not in terms of the prescribed text books, this Court made an attempt to look into the matter, leading to our interim order dated 1.7.2010, which reads as follows: “1. All these writ petitions are at the instance of the students who have appeared in the MBBS/BDS courses in Himachal Pradesh. The selection is on the basis of a competitive examination known as combined pre-medical entrance test (CPMET) for the academic sessions 2010-11. The test comprises of 200 multiple choice questions. The examination is conducted by the H.P. University, Shimla. The petitioners have attempted to point out certain mistakes/different options etc. in the question paper and the answer key. 2. These writ petitions have been elaborately heard with the assistance of students themselves assisted also by the parents, teachers and the enlightened members of the bar representing the petitioners. It is clearly stated in the prospectus that the questions are based on the syllabus for the 10+1 and 10+II classes. It is also stated that the prescribed NCERT and H.P 4 Board of School Education text books only are to be referred for the purpose of any clarification. 3. In the light of the order we propose to pass in these cases, we do not think it appropriate to refer to each of the questions. Suffice it to say that the following questions have been discussed with reference to the prescribed books, in the presence of the learned counsel for the parties and the learned standing counsel for the University, parents, teachers and students. We find that the answer keys have been prepared/revised without reference to the position in the prescribed text books. That is impermissible since the only relevance is for the prescribed books. In the light of what is provided in the prescribed text books, the answer keys should be reset in respect of the following questions, as under: Questions(s) Answer(s) 1 D 34 C & B 88 B & C 92 B 106 C & D 122 A & C 145 B 149 Deleted question out of syllabus 150 Deleted question out of syllabus 155 B 167 D 4. There will be a direction to the University to rework the answer sheet on the basis of answers indicated above and publish the same within three days. Post on 5.7.2010 for further orders.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submit that in view of the interim order, referred to above, and the action taken by the University, as per the said order, no further orders are necessary in these writ petitions. These writ petitions are hence disposed of in terms of the interim order dated 01.07.2010, directing the University to take further steps in terms of the interim order in the matter for counselling and admission. Before parting with the cases, it will only be appropriate to observe that the University may have to definitely take steps to see that these sort of complaints are not there in future particularly since there is a prescribed syllabus, prescribed in terms of the two text books and there cannot be any chance for diverse opinion of experts since the answers are to be 5 based only on the authentic text books prescribed by the NCERT and the State Board. 3. The writ petitions are disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. Copy dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice 5th July, 2010. (Justice Kuldip Singh), (ks/bhatt) Judge.