1 CWP No. 830/2009 7.4.2009 Present: Mr. B.N. Misra, counsel for the petitioner. Mr. B.C. Negi, counsel for respondents 1 and 2. Mr. P.K. Sharma, Additional Advocate General with Mr. P.M. Negi, Deputy Advocate General for respondents 3 and 4. Ms. Anita Dogra, counsel for respondent No.6 Mr. Vinay Kuthiala, counsel for respondent No.7. We have opened the sealed covers received from each of the three experts. Experts’ opinion along with photostat copies of the text attached therewith are ordered to be placed on record of the writ petition. All the three experts have unanimously said that the correct answer to question No.81 is Type-VII collagen. However, all the four options to question No.81, reproduced in our order dated 2nd April, 2006, are different. No doubt, in option-A, Type-VII collagen is also included, but Type-V collagen is also part of it. Therefore, even this option-A cannot be said to be a correct answer because, as per this option Type-V collagen is also the answer which is incorrect. We see no reason not to accept the reports of the experts, particularly when all of them have supported their answer with text from the authoritative books, photocopies whereof have been attached with the reports. 2 In view of the aforesaid reports, result of entrance test is required to be revised. Some of the candidates, who answered option-B as the correct answer, which according to the answer key prepared by the paper setter is the correct option, must have been awarded 2 marks for the said answer. They are not entitled to the award of those marks because that answer as also all other three optional answers given below the question are incorrect. So the score of all those candidates who answered option-B as the correct answer is required to be reduced by two marks. Similarly, all those candidates whose score has been reduced by .67, on account of rule of negative marking, are entitled to addition of .67 marks to their score already published. University is directed to re-draw the result in accordance with these observations of ours. Learned counsel representing the University says that he has instructions from the University to ask for postponement of the counseling, fixed for tomorrow, i.e. 8.4.2009, and instead to seek the fixation of 13th April, 2009 as the date for such counseling, after re-drawal of the result. He says that today being a holiday, exercise for revision/re- 3 drawal of the result in accordance with the aforesaid observations will be undertaken and completed tomorrow, i.e. 8.4.2009, and the results shall be published and also displayed on the website of the University on the next following day, i.e. 9.4.2009. Accordingly, we order the postponement of the counseling fixed for tomorrow to 13.4.2009. Writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. In view of the disposal of the main petition, application (s), if any, are also disposed of. Copy of the order be given dasti. ( R.B. Misra ), J. ( Surjit Singh ), J. 7th April, 2009(sl)