JUDGMENT 1. - This order will dispose of the above numbered writ petitions in which one or the other question is identical. 2. All the writ petitions relates to Pre-Medical Test (P.M.T.), 1988. Two principal questions have been addressed at the bar. The first is that in the paper set for the Botany Subject the Hindi terms have not been used and thereby the petitioners could not understand those terms, the medium of answer of the petitioners being Hindi and therefore they were misled. The second is that in the keys which were later on published more than one answers have been shown and it goes to show that for some of the questions set in the various subjects, there were more than one possible correct answer and therefore, the candidate was likely to be confused and was confused and therefore either did not attempt those questions or gave wrong answers. 3. For admission to the various medical colleges in Rajasthan, which are five in number, P.M.T. 1988 was held by Sukhadia University, Udaipur. A large number of candidates including the petitioners appeared in the examination held from 2nd July to 5th July, 1988 and result of the said examination was declared on 20th August, 1989. Thee were four subjects Physics, Botany, Chemistry and Zoology. So far as the setting of the paper in Hindi and the English terms, being used is concerned, the dispute is only in relation to the Botany paper. The case of the petitioners is that 40% of the questions, which were set in Hindi were only having English Terms and not their Hindi translations or corresponding Hindi terms and, therefore, the petitioners who had a bright academic career had secured very high percent marks in other three subjects, got less marks in the botany paper and if the paper would have been set in Hindi if the Hindi terms would have been used, the petitioner would have been able to answer those 40% questions also and would have scored higher marks and they would have brought the number of marks in botany to such an extent that total of each of the petitioner is would have 910, the mark at which the admission to P. M.T. stopped. So far as B.D.S. is concerned, the admissions stopped at total marks 908. 4. So far as B.D.S. is concerned, the admissions stopped at total marks 908. 4. We will presently show that this contention has no force The question paper in all the subjects including botany consists of multiple choice objective type questions. The question paper in botany like other subjects in the form of test book containing 100 questions bearing numbers 1, 2, 3........ 100. As per the scheme of the examinations and the general guidelines issued, there could have been four suggested answers (1), (2), (3) and (4) to each question. A look at one of the answer-books containing 100 question papers of botany for the year 1988 will show that the paper set is bilingual i.e, English and Hindi. First the question has been given in English and against it has been set in Hindi. It appears that in same the questions set in Hindi terms for the various technical English terms have not been given and they have been only given in Devnagri Script. A look at the Commission for Scientific of technical terms in Science' so far finalised by the Commission for Scientific and Technical Terminology published by the Ministry of Education and Government of India, a photostat copy has been filed as Schedule R/C, alongwith the reply of the non-petitioners, will show that principles have been laid down by the Board of Scientific Terminology and it is mentioned therein "By international terminology is meant the scientific and technical terms given in the proceedings of the International Council of Scientific Unions, from time to time. The Board endorses the view of the University Commission and the Central Advisory Board of Education that, as far as possible, international scientific and technical terms should be used in all books written in Hindi and other principal languages of India. International terms in Geology, Zoology and Botany should be adopted as such. 5. The Symbols, signs and formula used in Mathematics and other sciences should be adopted without modification i.e, letters and figures of the Roman alphabet should be used in Hindi. 6. In preparing dictionaries of scientific terminology, the transliteration of the international terms should be given in Devnagari and then the original in Roman script in brackets. Whenever necessary, a translation and explanation of the term will also be given. 7. 6. In preparing dictionaries of scientific terminology, the transliteration of the international terms should be given in Devnagari and then the original in Roman script in brackets. Whenever necessary, a translation and explanation of the term will also be given. 7. We may state that even during the year 1986-87, in the paper set for the subject of Botany, almost the same thing happened that while also giving the questions in Hindi, the English terminology was used. It can, therefore, be said that it appears to have been the practice of the examiners while setting the paper in botany subject in Hindi to use the English terms, which are internationally known. It may also be stated that during the course of arguments, we had instructed the learned counsel for the parties to let this Court know as to which are prescribed books for Botany for examinations in 1st Year T.D.C. as the candidates who have passed the 1st Year T.D.C. are eligible to appear in P.M.T. Examinations A look at the syllabus for the year 1987 will show that so far as Botany subject is concerned, a book recommended is also by Nathawat, Sharma Sahani. A look at the aforesaid prescribed book will show that technical terms have been used in Devnagari script. We have already said that English terms are internationally known terms. Even the Hindi Translations have not been given in the book. It can, therefore, be said that a candidate while studying in first year T.D.C. has to read books prescribed for Botany subject, which books contain the internationally known technical terms in English and even the Hindi translation is not mentioned there. It can therefore, be not said that the candidate could be misled by using the devnagari script for the internationally known technical terms while setting the paper in Hindi. That apart, we had directed the non-petitioners to produce for perusal the answer books of the petitioners and we may state that in one case out of 12 questions in which no Hindi translation of internationally known terms was used, the candidate answered nine questions correctly. The other candidates have answered a few questions correctly though few others could not be answered correctly. This could have peen the position even if the Hindi translations of the internationally known technical terms would have been used. The other candidates have answered a few questions correctly though few others could not be answered correctly. This could have peen the position even if the Hindi translations of the internationally known technical terms would have been used. We are, therefore, of the opinion that merely because while setting the paper in Hindi, the Hindi translations of the internationally known technical terms were not given, it cannot be said that the candidate was confused and was misled in answering the questions. That apart, a look at the instructions for the candidate, which were in the application form itself, will show that clause (19) is "if you have any complaint in regard to any question, the same should be submitted through the Centre Superintendent within 24 hours of the examination of that question paper for the consideration of the University authorities otherwise cognizance of the same will not be taken." If any candidate had any complaint in regard to any question. questions that while setting the question in Hindi. Hindi, translations of the internationally known technical terms should have been used and have not been so used, he/she, should have filed a complaint within 24 hours and admittedly no such complaint was filed. Therefore, viewed from any angle, it cannot be said that there was any chance of a candidate being misled as a result of not using the Hindi translations of the internationally known technical terms while setting the paper in Hindi. 8. Coming to the next arguments that when the keys for the various subjects were published, some of the petitioners came to know that there were more than one possible correct answer and therefore in the case of Urmil Mehra and Rameshwar Prasad they could not answer such of the question which had more than one possible answer, we may state that this submission has also no force. It cannot be disputed that a perusal of the key for the various subjects is will show that for some questions, though they are not too many, more than one possible correct answers have been shown, it can, therefore, be said that some questions which were set were such which were having more than one possible correct answer. The contention of Mr. Rastogi for one of the petitioners is that in cases of objective type tests there cannot be more than one possible answers. The contention of Mr. Rastogi for one of the petitioners is that in cases of objective type tests there cannot be more than one possible answers. He also contended that an attempt should be made while setting the paper to set such questions which had only one possible correct answer, and only such questions could have been set which had only one possible answer. The very fact that the keys published for the various subjects including physics, goes to show that there are more than one possible answers, leads us to the conclusion that it is possible that there may be few questions which have more than one possible correct answer. In case a candidate has studied properly, he must know as to which question has more one possible correct answer, rather he will have a choice in such cases answers being correct. Therefore, we are unable to say that in objective type test, there cannot be any question which may be having more than one possible correct answers. So we may state that we have examined some answer books of the petitioners and it appears to us that in some answers questions had more than one possible answer, correct answers have been given and the marks have been given to the candidates We, therefore, do not find any substance even in this submission. We may state that except one writ petition ( Writ Petition No. 2433/1968, Hemant Kumar Goyal v. University of Udaipur ) which was filed before the declaration of the result, which was declared on 20th August, 1988, all other writ petitions have been filed after declaration of the result and the question raised be after-thought because names of none of these petitioners could not appear in the merit list, so far as the above writ petition of Hemant Kumar is concerned it too was withdrawn earlier and lateron another writ- petition was filed by him also. 9. Result is that there is no merit in any of the petitions. Each of the petition is dismissed with no order as to costs.Petition dismissed. *******