JUDGMENT Virendra Kumar, J. - This bunch of writ petitions has been filed by some of the candidates who appeared in the Combined Pre-Medical Test of 1987 (hereinafter referred to as the C.P.M.T.) but they failed to get admission in any of the medical courses, for which the test was held. C. P. M.T. examination was held for admission of students in the medical courses available in the State Medical Colleges as well as a Dental College, Ayurvedic, Unani and Homoeo-pathic Colleges in the State. Admission to the different courses available in these institutions is made in order of merit on the basis of the marks secured by the candidates in the C.P.M.T. The C.P.M.T. for the year 1987 was conducted by Rohilkhand University. The petitioners who have filed these writ petitions singly or jointly, have challenged their result declared in the C.P.M.T. on various grounds. 2. There were 4 subjects in which the test was held, namely, Physics, Chemistry. Botany and Zoology and Hindi in addition to them. Each Science paper carried 300 marks. It is an objective type of test in which for each question 4 alternatives or options are given in the paper and a candidate is supposed to tick the option which, according to him, is the correct answer to the question. There is a key answer given by the Paper Setter and in case the option preferred by the candidate tallies with the key answer, the candidate becomes entitled to 3 marks. If the answer preferred by the candidate does not tally with the key answer. i.e., it is incorrect besides the fact he does not obtain 2 (Sic) 3 marks, he also loses 1 mark by way of negative marking. The contention of the petitioners is that with regard to certain questions, all the 4 alternatives or options given in the question paper were incorrect and in respect of certain other questions the key answers were not only correct answers but also on the other hand more than one option or alternative could be said to be correct answers. The petitioners who have made such challenge, claimed credit of marks for such questions. According to them, if marks for which they are entitled are added to their total, they would be entitled for admissions as their total would exceed the total of the last selected candidate. 3. The petitioners who have made such challenge, claimed credit of marks for such questions. According to them, if marks for which they are entitled are added to their total, they would be entitled for admissions as their total would exceed the total of the last selected candidate. 3. After ticking one of the alternatives or answers for each question which the candidate considers to be correct. the examinees are to fill up separate sheets called cage sheets or caging by noting the number of correct alternative therein. The contention of the examinees is that prior to 1987 the candidates of C. P.M.T. were allowed to retain with them a carbon copy of the cage sheet or answer hook but this had wrongly and illegally been stopped in the C. P. M.T. of the year in question i.e., 1987. They have accordingly prayed a relief in this behalf in the petitions but subsequently it was not pressed. 4. They have also sought it relief for publication of the text hooks for C.P.M.T. which is held every year for admission in the medical courses (referred to above) on the basis of observations of the Supreme Court in the case of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, AIR 11)83 SC 1230 1983 All U 1220). 5. With regard to Hindi paper also. the test held is of objective type. The qualifying marks are 52 out of the total marks of 150. It has also been contended by the petitioners of Writ Petitions Nos. 7780 of 1987 and 784 of 1988 that several questions included in the Hindi Paper were outside the ambit of the prescribed syllabus hence correct answers to t hem could not he given. On giving due regard to this fact. the petitioners would he entitled to the credit for such questions and this would entitle them to get more than qualifying marks in Hindi. in the absence of which they could score less than 52 marks and so they could not get admission. 6. According to opposite party No. 1 Rohilkhand University). which contested the claims of the petitioners and challenged their stand, for each question it was only the key answer which was the correct answer and it is wrong to say that for any question more than one option or alternative answer could be said to be correct answer. 6. According to opposite party No. 1 Rohilkhand University). which contested the claims of the petitioners and challenged their stand, for each question it was only the key answer which was the correct answer and it is wrong to say that for any question more than one option or alternative answer could be said to be correct answer. It is also incorrect to say that any question or all the four options liven in respect of any question were incorrect in any of the four Science Papers. With regard to Hindi Paper also, it is denied that any question of that Paper was beyond the ambit of the syllabus prescribed. The power of the Court to look into the correctness of the answers of the disputed questions is also challenged. Plea of limitation is also raised. No written statement was filed by the opposite parties Nos. 1 and 3. 7. In the case of Kanpur University v. Sarnir Gupta, (1983) All LJ 1220) (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court was pleased to observe that if a paper setter commits an error while indicating the correct answer to a question set by him, the students who answer that question correctly cannot be failed for the reason that though their answer is correct, it does not accord with the answer supplied by the paper setter to the University as correct answer. it has been followed in several cases (Writ Petn. No. 5814 of 1983, Yogendra Singh v. Avadh University Faizabad, decided on March 21. 1984; Writ Petri. No. 5237 of 1985, Abdul Salam v. State of U.P.. decided on 21-5-1986 and Writ Petri. No. 6715 of 1986, Vikas Garo v. Registrar (C. P. M. T.) Kanpur University. decided on 11-12-87) decided by this Court. Hence the question of correctness of the key answer and the answer opted by the petitioners when raised can he and has to he looked into by this Court. 8. In the same case the Hon'ble Supreme Court has further been pleased to observe that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is not only proved to be wrong but it must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong. It is not to be held to be wrong by an inferential process or reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. In case of doubt unquestionable key answer has to be preferred. It is not to be held to be wrong by an inferential process or reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. In case of doubt unquestionable key answer has to be preferred. The Hon'ble Supreme Court further observed that if the matter is beyond doubt, it would he unfair to penalise the students for not giving the answer which accords with the key answer namely an answer which is demonstrated to he wrong. Where it is proved that the answer given by the students is correct, the students shall be entitled for the relief asked for. The views or opinions of authors contained in their hooks. teachers, and/or a few others concerned with the subject as experts or otherwise furnished by both the parties were not consistent and uniform. In fact the opinions of the Experts filed by a party mostly supported the stand of the party who filed it and on several questions both the parties have filed the opinions of the Experts. So it was considered desirable to have the opinions of two experts, who are quite detached and hold that rank of Readers or Professors in each subject appointed at the instance of the Court. as to correctness of answers to the disputed questions as well as concerned questions. In fact it was at the instance of the counsel for the parties that the Vice-Chancellor of Lucknow University was requested by the Court to name, accordingly. two experts for each of the three subjects concerned, namely, Zoology, Botany and Chimistry to give their opinions. Subsequently learned counsel for the Rohilkhand University (opposite party No. 1) resiled from the earlier stand of obtaining the report from the experts of Lucknow University. The experts appointed at the instance of the Court, who are of the rank of Professors or Readers, have looked into the concerned material including all that was furnished by the parties. This was done in presence of the counsel for both the sides who had and fully availed of the opportunity of presenting their cases before the experts. After consideration and examination of the material and with the help of their knowledge and experience, the experts gave their opinions. 9. This was done in presence of the counsel for both the sides who had and fully availed of the opportunity of presenting their cases before the experts. After consideration and examination of the material and with the help of their knowledge and experience, the experts gave their opinions. 9. The learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted a consolidated chart furnishing the particulars as regards the names and roll numbers of the petitioners, the question numbers in respect of which each of the petitioners raised dispute and the total marks already received by each of the petitioners. No mistake in the chart has been pointed out by the opposite parties. According to the learned counsel for the petitioners, the dispute with regard to the papers of Botany, Zoology and Chemistry is confined by them to the disputed questions specified by them in the chart and no other question not included in the chart was pressed with regard to these subjects. It has also been admitted during the course of arguments that out of the petitioners who have filed these writ petitions, six petitioners, namely, Vinay Kumar of Writ Petition No. 1729 of 1988, Kni. Ravia Sultana Ansari of Writ Petition No. 2421 of 1988, Ritu Mishra of Writ Petition No. 3727 of 1988 and Sanjai Khanna of Writ Petition No. 7641 of 1987 have already got admission in one of the medical courses and as such the writ petitions with regard to them are not pressed. Hence Writ Petitions so far as they relate to them stand dismissed as not pressed. After looking into the examination record of the petitioner Manindra Pal Singh of Writ Petition No. 456 of 1988 by his learned counsel he did not come forward to press the writ petition; and none appeared from the petitioner's side hence Writ Petition No. 456 of 1988 is also dismissed. 10. Petitioners Asheesh Jain of Writ Petition No. 7780 of 1987 and Akash Jain of Writ Petition No. 784 of 1988 claim marks in Hindi paper on the ground that certain questions t specified in their petitions) to "General Hindi Paper" are not the questions of 'General Hindi which is prescribed in the syllabus, but are the questions of "General Knowledge" which is not prescribed in the syllabus, for C. P. M. T.; hence they are outside the syllabus. Sri D.P. Singh has clearly stated that all that is pressed by these two petitioners is the credit for such questions only. 11. Learned counsel for other petitioners including for the petitioner Sri Kant Tripathi of Writ Petition No. 3727 of 1988 did not press any claim for marks with regard to Hindi Paper. 12. Pankaj Bhalla. the petitioner of Writ Petition No. 7641 of 1987 pressed that his cage sheet for Physics Paper has been changed and the cage sheet produced before this Court is not the cage sheet written in his handwriting So he claims credit for marks for questions of Physics Paper on the ground of manipulation and tampering. 13. The disputed questions of Science Paper in respect of which marks have been claimed by different petitioners are numbers 24,36,37,54 and 93 in Botany Paper, numbers 22, 35 and 51 in Zoology Paper and numbers 16, 22, 81, 82 in Chemistry Paper. According to the learned counsel for the parties beyond these questions no other question number of any Science Paper is involved in any writ petition. At the time of the arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners did not press Question No. 37 of Botany Paper, Question No. 51 of Zoology Paper and Questions Nos. 16 and81 of Chemistry Paper. So now the dispute remains confined to questions Nos. 22 and 35 of Zoology Paper, Questions Nos. 22,and82 of Chemistry Paper and Questions Nos. 24, 36, 54 & 93 of Botany Paper, apart from the questions of Hindi Paper. We now proceed to deal with each question separately. Question Paper of Zoology Question No. 22 Gastric juice secreted in the stomach contains the enzymes: (1) Amlase. rennin and pepsin (2) Trypsiri, pepsin and rennin (3) Lipase. trypsin and pepsin (4) Pepsin. lipase and rennin 14-15. According to the petitioners. alternatives 1, and 4 both are correct. According to Rohilkhand University, alternative No. 4 which is the key answer, is the only correct answer. 16. From the petitioners side extracts of the following hooks have been filed to support their stand : 1. Medical Physiology. Seventh Edition, (by) A.C. Guyton. 2. Audhunik Jantu Vigvan (by) Ramesh Gupta. 17. A number of Books have been mentioned by Rohilkhand University in its written reply but extract of only one book (detailed below) has been filed. Books have not been furnished. Medical Physiology. Seventh Edition, (by) A.C. Guyton. 2. Audhunik Jantu Vigvan (by) Ramesh Gupta. 17. A number of Books have been mentioned by Rohilkhand University in its written reply but extract of only one book (detailed below) has been filed. Books have not been furnished. It has filed the opinions of two Experts, namely, Professor A. S. Kapoor of Zoology Department, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur and Professor K. Swarup of Zoology Department, Gorakhpur University in support of its stand. 18. At page 775 of A.C. Guyton's Book, it is noted that small quantities of other enzymes are also secreted in the stomach juice including gastric lipase, gastric amylase and Gelttinase. 19. Ramesh Gupta at Page 229 in his Book 'Adhunik Jantu Vigyan' (1986) has mentioned that gastric juice .contains pepsin, rennin, gastric lipase and gastric amylase as four enzymes. About secretion of gastric juice, Ramesh Gupta in his.Book' Modern Zoology' has mentioned that it is secreted in considerable amount by 350 crores gastric glands of an average human being. The secretion is 2 to 3 litres of gastric juice per day. 20. The question, as it is, relates to enzymes contained in gastric juice secreted in the stomach. There is no dispute that gastric juice secreted in stomach contains rennin and pepsin. The dispute between the two sides is on the point whether gastric juice secreted in the stomach contains 'amylase'. The extracts of the Books referred to by the petitioners do nog make out that amylase is a constituent of the gastric juice secreted in the stomach. Presence of amylase is one of the enzymes available in stomach in the juices over there does not mean that amylase is a constituent of the gastric juice secreted in stomach. It can very well be a constituent of other juices available in stomach. 21. From the side of the opposite party, extract of the Book 'Biology of Chorodates' by H.C. Nigam has been filed. At page 679 they are, noted and discussed the enzymes present in the gastric juice available in the sotmach. Anylase is not one of the enzymes present in he gastric juice secreted in the stomach. 22. 21. From the side of the opposite party, extract of the Book 'Biology of Chorodates' by H.C. Nigam has been filed. At page 679 they are, noted and discussed the enzymes present in the gastric juice available in the sotmach. Anylase is not one of the enzymes present in he gastric juice secreted in the stomach. 22. Opinions of the Experts (names above) furnished by the opposite party as well as those of Lucknow University are clear and categorical on the point that it is the fourth option out of the four alternatives, in other words the key answer, which is correct. 23. The petitioners' stand does not seem to be correct and hence is not accepted. Question No. 35 24. Which one of the following is NOT a reflex action? (1) Closure of eyelids on flashing a bright light in front of the eyes (2) Secretion of saliva at the sight of food (3) Swallowing of food (4) Shivering in severe cold 25. According to the petitioners, all the alternatives are incorrect. According to Rohilkhand University, alternative No. 3, which is the key answer, is the correct answer. 26. From the side of the petitioners extracts of the following 11 Books have been filed :- 1. Adhunik Praniki by Umashankar Srivastava & Kripal Singh Bhatia 2. Biology, A text book, of Higher Secondary School by N.C.E.R.T. 3. Human Physiology (Vol. 1) by C.C. Chatterjee 4. Human Physiology (Vol. II) by C.C. Chatterjee 5. Animal Biology by E. L. Jordan & H.C. Nigam 6. Text Book of Medical Physiology by A.C. Guyton 7. Review of Medical Physiology by William F. Ganong. 8. Text book of Physiology Edited by K.M. By kov. 9. Animal Physiology and Ecology by P.S. Verma, V. K. Agarwal & B.S. Tyagi. 10. Butterworths Medical Dictionary (2nd Edition). 11. Stedman's Medical Dictionary (23rd Edition). 27. Moreover the petitioners have filed the opinions of three Experts, namely. Professor P. K. Dey and Professor P. N. Somani of Banaras Hindu University and Professor B. K. Gupta of Kanpur Medical College which support the petitioners' stand that the question is incorrect. 28. From the side of the opposite party, Rohilkhand University, opinions of the aforementioned two Experts (Professor A. S. Kapoor and Professor K. Swarup) have been filed which go to support its stand. 28. From the side of the opposite party, Rohilkhand University, opinions of the aforementioned two Experts (Professor A. S. Kapoor and Professor K. Swarup) have been filed which go to support its stand. A book has been mentioned in the written reply of the opposite party but neither the book itself, nor its extract has been furnished. 29. Two experts of the Lucknow University have given following opinion :- "Swallowing of food involves two parts : (a) Voluntary pushing of food-bolus towards the back part of the tongue; and (b) Involuntary pushing of the bolus into the oesophagus. When an ant bites out foot (Voluntary part by an outsider) while reading, the leg is jerked (involuntary and called a reflex). As swallowing of food involves both voluntary and involuntary acts, it is not (fully) a reflex, which has been defined as an integrated activity occurring involuntarily in response to a stimulus applied to a receptor. Hence, the third option is correct." (emphasis by us) 30. Dr. B. K. Gupta, Professor of Post Graduate Department of Medicine, Kanpur Medical College in his opinion furnished by the petitioners has opined as below :- "In my opinion, all the above are examples of reflex action including "swallowing', which is the key answer of the university. In this connection, I quote a very standard book "Clinical Physiology" by Moran Campbell and Dickinson with a foreword by Sir Robert Platt, President of the Royal College of Physicians of London, Page 298, wherein it has been stated that "only the intention of the swallowing act is under voluntary control, the pharyngeal and oesophageal phases being purely reflex." Every reflex action needs a trigger mechanism and this in swallowing is produced by pushing of the food into the pharynx. Thereafter, starts the reflex action of swallowing, which pushes the food from pharynx through oesophagus to stomach." 31. We have examined all the material. It is quite clear from the books and the opinions of the experts that in the process of swallowing food is squeezed or rolled posteriorly in the mouth by pressure forcing the bolus of food into pharynx. This action is voluntary hence cannot be reflex action. Further process of swallowing in. which the food passes from pharynx into oesophagus is automatic, hence is involuntary. Therefore, it cannot be said that option No. 3 is totally or fully wrong. 32. This action is voluntary hence cannot be reflex action. Further process of swallowing in. which the food passes from pharynx into oesophagus is automatic, hence is involuntary. Therefore, it cannot be said that option No. 3 is totally or fully wrong. 32. The Hindi version of the alternative answer No. 3 to t4ie question is . In the process of 'of food some voluntary effort is made. This is' a matter of common experience. 33. The key answer No. 3 is not quite incorrect. Hence applying the principle laid down in the case of Samir Gupta (1983 All Li 1220) (SC) (supra) the petitioners' claim for question No. 35 cannot be accepted. Question Paper of Chemistry Question No. 22 34. A Cetone and acetaldehyde can be identified by treatment with:- (a) NaHSO3 (b) NaCN (c) NaOh + 12 d) Ag (NH3)2 35. According to the original stand of the petitioners, all the alternative answers are correct; but subsequently at the time of arguments the learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri D.P. Singh, stated that only the alternatives Nos. 1 and 4 are correct. He conceded that no other alternative is correct. 36. According to Rohilkhand University, alternative No. 4, which is the key answer is the only correct answer. 37. Petitioners have filed the extracts of the following Books to support of their version:- 1. Bhautik Tatha Carbonic Rasayan by S.N. Srivastava & M.M.N. Tandon. 2. Organic Chemistry by P. L. Soni 3. Modern Organic Chemistry by K. N. Sharma 4. Organis Chemistry by Leuis F. Fieser & Mary Fieser 5. Organic Chemistry (2nd Edition) by Robert Thornton Morrison & Rebberty Neilson Boyd 6. Organic Chemistry VoL I by S. P. Gupta, J. K. Khanna & B. B. Raizada. 38. From the side of Rohilkhand University the book of 'Organic Chemistry by Bhal & Bhal' has been mentioned in its written reply in support of its version without furnishing the book or its extract. Another book mentioned is that of S. N. Srivastava & M.M.N. Tandon referred to above. The opinion of Prof. M.B. Shukla, Ex-Professor and Head of Department of Chemistry. Banaras Hindu University has been furnished to support the stand of the University. 39. The question requires the answer as to by using which of the compounds (mentioned in the four alternatives) Acetone and Aldehydes can be distinguished. The opinion of Prof. M.B. Shukla, Ex-Professor and Head of Department of Chemistry. Banaras Hindu University has been furnished to support the stand of the University. 39. The question requires the answer as to by using which of the compounds (mentioned in the four alternatives) Acetone and Aldehydes can be distinguished. There is no dispute on the point that by treating with Ag(NH3)2 (i.e. alternative No. 4) both can be distinguished. Dispute remains on the point whether by treatment with Sodium Sulphite (Na HSOh) covered under alternative No. 1. both can be distinguished. In the extract from the aforementioned book of P. L. Soni (which has been filed and relied upon by the petitioners) at page 1.320 there is given the chart of distinguishing tests for acetone and acetaldehyde. This chart shows that . by treating with ammoniacal silver nitrate. i.e. Ag(NH3)2. with respect to Aldehydes silver mirror is obtained and in respect of ketones no mirror is obtained. In this way both acetone and acetaldehyde get distinguished by treatment with Ag(NH,)2. The chart does not show that on the treatment with Na HSO acetone and acetaldehyde get at all distinguished. The chart no doubt shows that on treatment with saturated Sodium bisulphate (Na HSO) 'crystalline bisulphate compound" results in respect of aldehydes and ketones hence even the treatment with Sodium bisulphate (Na HSO) both acetone and acetaldehyde do not get distinguished. Further none of the books, the extracts of which have been filed from the side of the petitioners, makes out that by treatment with NaHSO, acetone and acetaldehyde become distinguished. On the other hand, the opinion of the expert, Sri M.B. Shukla, Ex-Professor & Head of Department of Chemistry, Banaras Hindu University filed from the side of Rohilkhand University is also to the effect that acetone and acetaldehyde can be distinguished only on the treatment with Ag (NHi)2 (alternative No. 4). Opinion of the two experts of Lucknow University is also to the same effect hence according to them also alternative No. 4, i.e. key answer, is the only correct answer because on treatment only with Ag(NH)2 acetone and acetaldehyde get distinguished. Consequently, the stand of the petitioners with regard to Question No. 22 is not correct and cannot be accepted. Opinion of the two experts of Lucknow University is also to the same effect hence according to them also alternative No. 4, i.e. key answer, is the only correct answer because on treatment only with Ag(NH)2 acetone and acetaldehyde get distinguished. Consequently, the stand of the petitioners with regard to Question No. 22 is not correct and cannot be accepted. Question No. 82: Raw materials used in the manufacture of cement are: (1) Limestone; gypsum and sand (2) Limestone, clay and sand (3) Quick lime and gypsum (4) Lime, gypsum and alumina 40-41. According to the petitioners all the alternative answers are incorrect. According to Rohilkhand University, alternative No. 2, which is the key answer, is the only correct answer. 42. From the side of the petitioners, extracts of the following Books have been filed in support of their version:- 1. Modern Inorganic Chemistry by K.N. Sharma 2. General and Inorganic Chemistry by S.G. Sharma & S. H. Gupta 3. General and Inorganic Chemistry by Jay Krishna Khanna, Rajeev Khanna & R.K. Bauntra 4. Intermediate General and Inorganic Chemistry by O.P. Shukla 5. Intermediate General and Inorganic Chemistry by J.P. Singh & R.K. Sharma 6. Intermediate General and Inorganic Chemistry by P. L. Soni & V. P. Kudesia 7. Advanced Inorganic Chemistry by S. Prakash, G.D. Tulsi & S. K. Basu 43. From the side of Rohilkhand University, the following 2 Books have been mentioned in the written reply, but neither the Books nor their extracts have been furnished :- 1. Naveen Akarbonic Rasayan Shastra, 1976 Ed. by G.D. Tuli. 2. Acarbonic Rasayan Shastra, 1970 Ed. by R.K. Bauntra & Jaikrishan Khanna 44. Further contesting opposite party has filed the opinion of Prof. M.B. Shukla (referred to above) to support its stand. 45. The key answer (i.e. alternative No. 2) which according to the Rohilkhand University is the only correct answer to the question, speaks of use of three distinct and separate constituents (namely, limestone, clay and sand) in manufacture of cement. In support of its stand Rohilkhand University, which has ncg furnished any book or its extracts has filed the opinion of Professor M. B. Shukla (referred to above) as the solitary expert's opinion. Prof. Shukla himself in his opinion has mentioned that "Raw materials used in the manufacture of Cement are lime stone and clay. In support of its stand Rohilkhand University, which has ncg furnished any book or its extracts has filed the opinion of Professor M. B. Shukla (referred to above) as the solitary expert's opinion. Prof. Shukla himself in his opinion has mentioned that "Raw materials used in the manufacture of Cement are lime stone and clay. He has made reference to two books in his opinion by citing their pages which lay down the constituents of cement. In the excerpts given by Prof. Shukla from both these books only limestone and clay are mentioned as constituents of Cement. In one of the excerpts the constituents of clay are-no doubt mentioned as silica, iron-oxide and alumina, but the fact remains that the sand is not at all mentioned as a distinct and separate constituent required for the manufacture of Cement. The opinion of the three experts of Lucknow University which include a Professor and two Readers of the Chemistry Department, is to the effect that all the alternatives are incorrect. Obviously, it means that the key answer No. 2 is also incorrect. Extracts of the books cited from the side of the petitioners also go to indicate that clay and limestone are the main constituents of Cement and in the process of manufacture of cement gypsum is also used to regulate its setting time. No doubt, silica, iron oxide and alumina are the Chief constituents of clay but sand, as such, is not a distinct and separate constituent used for manufacture of Cement. 46. Hence, it is obvious that the key answer No. 2 is incorrect inasmuch as sand is not a constituent like that of limestone and clay to be used in manufacture of Cement. No other alternative given in the question paper mentions correct constituents of Cement. All the options being wrong the petitioners are entitled to full three (positive marks) without negative marking for question No. 82. Question Paper of Botany Question No. 24 : Which one of the following factors is Biotic :- 1. Photoperiod 2. C02 content of soil 3. Texture and porosity of soil 4. Rainfall 47. The petitioners' claim is that all the alternatives are incorrect. But according to Rohilkhand University, the contending opposite party, alternative No. 2, which is the key answer, is the correct answer. 48. From the petitioners' side extracts of the following Books have been filed to support their stand:- 1. Texture and porosity of soil 4. Rainfall 47. The petitioners' claim is that all the alternatives are incorrect. But according to Rohilkhand University, the contending opposite party, alternative No. 2, which is the key answer, is the correct answer. 48. From the petitioners' side extracts of the following Books have been filed to support their stand:- 1. Elements of Ecology by P.D. Sharma & R. Misra 2. Plant Ecology by R.S. Shukla & P.S. Chandel 3. Madhyamik Vanaspati Vigyan by M.P. Kausik 4. The Penguin Dictionary of Botany 5. Animal Physiology and Ecology by P.S. Verma, V.K. Agarwal and B.S. Tyagi 6. Vanaspati Vigyan by Ved Prakash. Singhal 7. Basic Concepts of Ecology by C. B. Knight 49. The contesting opposite party has filed the opinions of the following Professors as Experts relating to Questions Nos. 24,36,54 and 93 of Botany Paper to support their stand:- 1. Professor R.S. Ambasht, Botany Department, Banaras Hindu University. 2. Professor V. Venkaseswarlu, Botany Department, Usmania University. 3. Professor V. P. Singh, Vikram University,Ujjain. 50. Rohilkhand University has filed extracts of the following Books to support its version :- 1. Plant & Environment by Daubenmire, R.F. 2. Ecology by E.P. Odum 3. General Biology by Taylor & Weber 4. Plant Ecology by John E. Weaver & Frederic E. Clements out of these books only extracts of the books at serial Nos. 2 and 4 have been filed by opposite party without furnishing any book. 51. The opinions of the two Professors of' Botany Department of Lucknow University, appointed as Experts At the instance of the Court, are also available on the record in respect of all the disputed questions, namely, 22,36,54 and 93 of Botany Paper along with the objections filed against them by one side, or both. 52. All this material has carefully been, examined by us. 53. The opinions of the two Experts from Lucknow University are as follows :- "CO2 content of the soil though partly biotic in origin, is in constant equilibrium with the content of the atmosphere owing to the porous nature of the soil. The soil content of CO2, hence, is .more or less constant and accordingly cannot he regarded as a biotic ecological factor. Hence the question as such is not correct." (Emphasis is by us) 54. The soil content of CO2, hence, is .more or less constant and accordingly cannot he regarded as a biotic ecological factor. Hence the question as such is not correct." (Emphasis is by us) 54. In the Penguin Dictionary of Botany (First Publication 1984) at page 45 biotic factors are defined as the living components of the environment that by their: activities affect the life of an organism. At page 1 in the same Book abiotic factors are defined as non-living components of the environment that directly affect plant and animal life, such as water, carbon dioxide, oxygen. and light. 55. In 'Basic Concepts of Ecology by Clifford B. Knight, 2nd Printing, 1966, at page 65 (cited by the petitioners) it is laid down :- "We find that the soild atmosphere differs from atmospheric air in that there is, in general less oxygen in proportion to the amount of carbon dioxide and a greater amount of water vapour in the soil, This is logical, since oxygen is continually used by plant root tissues and the vast array of minute soil organisms, while carbon dioxide is liberated as a waste product by living cells of these organisms." (Emphasis is by us) 56. In 'Elements of Ecology' by P.D. Sharma, Third Revised Edition at page 26 under the heading "Biotic Factors' it is laid down : "The biotic factors include the influence of living organisms, both plants and animals, upon the vegetation. Any activity of the living organism which may cause marked effects upon vegetation in any way is referred to as biotic effect. The biotic effect may be both direct and indirect." 57. The opinions of the Experts filed by the opposite party No. 1 are also to the effect that biotic factor is a living phenomenon and soil microorganisms mainly bacteria and fungi play an important role in releasing C02 though Carbon dioxide of soil by itself is not a biotic factor. It is influenced and generated by the soil microorganisms and respiring roots. 58. As CO2 content of the soil is influenced and released by microorganisms as well which are living components and biotic factor refers to living components, in our opinion it cannot he said that the key answer to this question is clearly or totally wrong in the sense laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Samir Guptas case, (19213 All U 1220). Consequently the petitioners' claim for marks in respect of Question No. 24 on the ground that the key answer No. 2 besides the other three options is incorrect, cannot be accepted. Question No. 36 59. An example of a parasitic plant that is also strictly epiphytic is:- 1. Cuscuta (Dodder) 2. Viscum (Misteletoe) 3. Rafflesia 4. Orabancha Petitioners' claim is that all the alternatives are incorrect. According to Rohilkhand University, alternative No. 2. which is the key answer, is the correct answer. 60. From the petitioners' side extracts of the following books have been filed to support their stand : 1. Elements of Ecology by P. D. Sharma & R. Misra 2. Plant Ecology by R. S. Shukla & P. S. Chandel 3. Madhyamik Vanaspati Vigyan by M. P. Kausik 4. Plant Diseases - Yearbook of Agriculture, 1953 5. College Botany (Vol. II) by H. C. Gangulee & A. K. Kar 6. Intermediate Botany by Dr. S. K. Srivastava & Prof. R. K. Sabarwal. 61. Rohilkhand University in its written reply has made a mention of the following books to support its stand :- 1. The Biology of Parasitic Plants by Job Kuijt. 2. Loranthaceas by B. M. Johari & S. P. Bhatnagar. 62. But neither these two hooks nor their extracts have been furnished. 63. The contesting opposite party has filed the opinions of the same three experts whose names have been mentioned while dealing with Question No. 24 (above). 64. Opinions of the two experts of Lucknow University appointed at the instance of the Court (with objection filed) are also available on the record. 65. Opinions of the three experts furnished from the side of the Rohilkhand University are being mentioned below (at one place) :- (i) "Viscum is a partial stem parasites since plant possesses an abundance of chlorophyll, they are autotrophic. They are growing porched on other plants so they are epiphytes." (ii) "Epiphytes are non-parasitic and autotrophic plants that grow on other plants. The nearest correct alternative in this question is Viscum which is partial stem parasite and strict epiphyte." (iii) "Viscum is a partial stem parasite and strictly epiphytic. The question pertains to parasitic plant which is also strictly epiphytic. So answer No. 2 is correct." 66. The nearest correct alternative in this question is Viscum which is partial stem parasite and strict epiphyte." (iii) "Viscum is a partial stem parasite and strictly epiphytic. The question pertains to parasitic plant which is also strictly epiphytic. So answer No. 2 is correct." 66. These opinions are in the nature of inferences or final views of these experts lacking in furnishing necessary material in support of them in order that the Court may accept them. 67. The opinions of the two experts from Lucknow University are as follows :- "By definition alone a parasite cannot be called an epiphyte. Hence the .question is wrong. For a parasite drawing of nourishment from the host and causing some damage to the host is a must while for an epiphyte the host is for anchorage and support only." 68. All the material has been considered by us. 69. Parasitic plants are those which get their food and water from other plants on which they depend. Epiphytic plants are those which grow or get support from other plants but do not take their food from other plants. This is the view contained in several books, namely. "Madhyamik Vanaspati Vigyan" by M. P. Kaushik at page (sic) 1974 Chapter 8 at page 36, 'Elements of Ecology' by P. D. Sharma. Third Revised Edition, Pages 137, 141, 'Plant Diseases The Year Book of Agriculture, 1953 at page 73 and 'College Botany', Volume It by H. C. Gangulee and A. K. Kar at pages 606 and 610. 'Madhyamik Vanaspati Vigyan' by Dr. S. K. Srivastava and R. K. Sabarwal, Fourth Revised Edition at page 26. 70. The question. as it is framed, refers to a parasitic plant which is also strictly epiphytic. So by this question what is asked for, is a plant which has the quality of a parasitic plant and together with the quality of a strictly epiphytic plant. But as explained by the Experts of Lucknow University in their opinions which get support from several authors, the two qualities cannot exist together in plants including Vascum in view of the very definition of the two types of plants, viz. Parasitic and Epiphytic. The former must get their food from other plants and the latter must depend on other plants not for food but for support like anchorage etc. Parasitic and Epiphytic. The former must get their food from other plants and the latter must depend on other plants not for food but for support like anchorage etc. Keeping in view the question as it is the opinion of the Experts of Lucknow University is correct and hence accepted. As The Question No. 36 (as it is) is incorrect the petitioners, therefore, claim full marks for this question. 71. In Abdul Salam's case on the question of awarding marks to the candidates when key answer is incorrect or the question itself becomes vague and incomplete of being answered in terms of "yes" or"no" it has been held, following the earlier decision of this Court in the case of Manoj Nigam and Avadh University (Writ Petn. No. 894 of 1985) decided on 11-9-1985-that the petitioners were entitled to get four marks, namely, three marks for the question and one mark on account of deduction made by way of negative marking. In the case of Vikas Garg (supra) also credit for full marks was allowed by this Court when all the four optional answers to a question were found to be "confusing". On the same analogy it is held that for the incorrect question No. 36 the petitioners are entitled of three positive marks without any negative marking. Question No. 54 72. Distinction of root, stem and leaf premordia in a developing fern occurs in the : 1. Zygote 2. Four celled stage of the embryo 3. Antheridium 4. Sporengium 73. Petitioners' claim is that all the alternatives are incorrect. According to Rohilkhand University, alternative No. 2, which is the key answer, is the correct answer. 74. From the petitioners' side extracts of the following books have been filed to support their stand : 1. Madhyamik Vanaspati Vigyan by M.P. Kausik 2. Vanaspati Vigyan by Ved Prakash Singhal 3. College Botany (Vol. II) by - H. C. Gangulee & A. K. Kar 4. Intermediate Botany by Dr. S. K. Srivastava & Prof R. K. Sabarwal 5. A Text Book of Botany (Vol. II) by A. K. Saxena & R. P. Sarbhai 6. Introductory Botany (Vol. II) by Dr. S. K. Gupta 7. Phytomorphology (An International Journal) by P. Maheshwari 8. The Ferns (Filicales) (Vol. I) by (sic) O. Power 9. Intermediate Vanaspati Vigyan by Sita Ram Prasad & Santosh Kr. Verma 10. A Text Book of Botany (Vol. II) by A. K. Saxena & R. P. Sarbhai 6. Introductory Botany (Vol. II) by Dr. S. K. Gupta 7. Phytomorphology (An International Journal) by P. Maheshwari 8. The Ferns (Filicales) (Vol. I) by (sic) O. Power 9. Intermediate Vanaspati Vigyan by Sita Ram Prasad & Santosh Kr. Verma 10. College Botany by H. J. Fuller & Oswald Tippo 11. Cryptogamic Botany (Vol. II) by Gilbert M. Smith 12. Botany for Degree Student Vascular Cryptogams ( Pteridophyta) Vol. IV by P. C. Vasishta 13. Morphology of Vascular Plants by A. J. Eames 75. In support of their version the petitioners have further filed opinions of three experts, namely, Dr. S. Kaur, Dr. P. B. Khare and Dr. R. P. Singh, who are the Scientists at National Botanical Research Institute, Lucknow. 76. Rohilkhand University has filed extracts of the following books to support its stand : 1. College Botany by H. J. Fuller & Oswald Tippo 2. An introduction to Pteridophyta by A. Rashid 3. Morphology of Vascular Plants by Arthur J. Eames One more book was just mentioned by opposite party without furnishing the book or its extract. 77. The contesting opposite party has further filed the opinions of the same three experts whose names have been mentioned while dealing with the question No. 24 and the same support the version of the Rohilkhand University. They have referred to a few books. 78. Opinions of the two experts of Lucknow University appointed at the instance of the Court (with objections filed) are also available on the record. 79. All the material has been examined by us. 80. The question refers to a developing fern in which distinction of root, stem and leaf primordial (i.e. at starting stage) occurs. According to the petitioners, distinction appears at 8-celled stage of the embryo, which is a latter stage but according to the contesting opposite party the said distinction appears at 4-celled stage of the embryo which is a stage earlier to 8-celled stage. 81. Generally in the books, the extracts of which have been filed by the petitioners, the view expressed is to the effect that the said distinction occurs at 8-celled stage in the embryo. 82. According to the opinions of the three experts from the National Botanical Research Institute. 81. Generally in the books, the extracts of which have been filed by the petitioners, the view expressed is to the effect that the said distinction occurs at 8-celled stage in the embryo. 82. According to the opinions of the three experts from the National Botanical Research Institute. Lucknow filed by the petitioners, distinction of root, stem and leaf primordial in a developing fern occurs in 8-celled stage of the embryo and not in 4-celled stage of the embryo. Names of a number of books have been mentioned by way of reference. In the opinion of these experts the question No. 54 is incorrect. 83. The book 'College Botany' by H. J. Fuller and O. Tippo (referred to from both the sides) lays down at pages 787 & 789 of its revised edition (Second Indian Reprint 1968) : "The sperm swims to the egg, usually to another prothallus, for the antheridia and archegonia on the same prothallus mature at different times. Fertilization takes place within an archegonium, and a zygote results, By cell division this Zygote forms an embryo which is nourished and protected by the prothallus during a short development period. In the growth of the embryo from the zygote, there is a four-celled stage. These cells by further division form four groups of cells. Later, one of these groups produces the root which absorbs food and water from the gametophyte. Another group of cells produces the primary root which begins to absorb water and salts from the soil The third group of cells forms the first green leaf which commences to manufacture food. Finally, the fourth group of cells produces the stem. Soon the young sporophyte becomes completely independent and the prothallus disintegrates." 84. The opinion of the experts of the Lucknow University runs as under:- "According to "Morphology of Vascular Plants" by Eames and "College Botany" by Fuller and Tippo, the distinction of root, stem and leaf primordial in Polypodiaceae (Filicales) to which the two course types belong occur at the 4-celled stage of the embryo, the first division being longitudinal and the second transverse. However, according to an "Introduction to Embryophyta Vol. 11 Pteridophytes" by Parihar and some other books, the distinction occurs at the 8-celled stage of the embryo, the first two being longitudinal and the third transverse. However, according to an "Introduction to Embryophyta Vol. 11 Pteridophytes" by Parihar and some other books, the distinction occurs at the 8-celled stage of the embryo, the first two being longitudinal and the third transverse. If the second view is accepted then the question itself becomes wrong and if the first view is accepted, the key answer is correct." 85. Prof. V.P. Singh whose opinion has been filed from the side of Rohilkhand University. relying on the book 'Phylogeny and form in the Plant Kingdom' by H.J. Dittmer has mentioned : "In ferns, the zygote enlarges and is at first split into a two-celled stage by a vertical wall. A second division perpendicular to the 1st results in it quadrant stage form. Stem is derived from anterior of the two inner cells in this quadrant embryo. The two cells give rise to first leaf from the anterior. and the primary root is differentiated from the posterior of these two cells." 86. Prof R.S. Ambasht of Benaras Hindu University has given the following opinion :- "In ferns differentiation of root, stem and leaf primordial is ruled out in alternatives 1. 3 and 4. Thus. the nearest correct alternative is alternative No. 2." 87. It is apparent from consideration of the views of the authors and the experts that in fern the zygote by cell division forms an embryo and in the growth of the embryo. there is at first a split into two cells. The second division results in quadrant stage form which is a four-celled stage. Thereafter as a result of further division comes 8-celled stage. Instead of a consistent and uniform opinion/ view there is dispute in the views/opinions of the authors/ experts as to whether the distinction of root, stem and leaf primordial in developing fern occurs at four-celled stage or eight-celled stage of the embryo. But in any case root. stem and leaf. the distinction of which is referred to in the question. can be said to he derived from the quadrant embryo and out of the four options to the question the key answer i.e. alternative No. 2 is the nearest correct alternative. The key answer, to the question. therefore. cannot be held to he clearly or totally wrong in the sense laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Samir Gupta's case, (1983 All U 1220). The key answer, to the question. therefore. cannot be held to he clearly or totally wrong in the sense laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the Samir Gupta's case, (1983 All U 1220). The result is that the petitioners' claim for marks in respect of question No. f4 cannot be accepted. Question No. 93 : 88. The appearance of tall and dwarf plants in the above F2 Pollination shows the: 1. Principles of dominance 2. Principle of segregation 3. Principle of independent assortment 4. Principle of purity of gamete 89. Originally the petitioners' claim was that the alternatives 2. 3 and 4 are correct but during the course of arguments the claim that alternative 3 is also correct has been given up. So now they press that options Nos.2 and 4 are correct. According to the Rohilkhand University alternative 2. which is the key answer. is the only correct answer. 90. From the side of the petitioners. extracts of the following Books have been filed in support of their stand :- 1. Madhyamik Vanaspati Vigyan by M.P. Kausik 2. Genetics by P. K. Gupta 3. Cell Biology. Genetics Molecular Biology & Evolution by P.S. Verma and V. K. Agarwal 4. Modern Zoology by Ramesh Gupta 91. Rohilkhand University has filed extracts of the following Books to support its stand and opinions of the three experts (as referred to above) while dealing with question No. 24 have also been filed in support. 1. Principles of Genetics by E.M. Sinnott. L.C. Dunn & T. Dobzhensky. 2. Principles of Genetics by E.J. Gardner. 92. The third Book 'Molecular Genetics' by S. Gunther though mentioned in its reply. has not been filed, nor its extract has been filed from the side of the contesting opposite party. 93. Opinion of Lucknow University experts is also in favour of the petitioners. 94. We have carefully examined all the material. 95. In the short notes dated 25-11-1988 filed by Sri D.P. Singh, it is noted on the basis of the extracts of the books referred to by the petitioners :- "Actually principles of segregation (alternative No. 2) as well as the principle of purity of gametes (alternative No. 41 are related to same principles and both are synonymous to each other. Some authors used to call the principles in question as the principles of segregation and some call it as the purity of gametes." 96. Some authors used to call the principles in question as the principles of segregation and some call it as the purity of gametes." 96. In the Books Madhyamik Vanaspati Vigvan' by M. P. Kausik. Cell Biology Genetics Molecular Biology K Evolution' by P.S. Verma & V. K. Agarwal and Genetics' by P. K. Gupta Principles of Segregation and Law of Purity of Gametes have clearly been used as synonyms indicating the same thing. Thus the petitioners fortify, their claim that the options Nos. 2 and 4 both are correct answers to the question. 97. They quote one of the books namely 'Cell Biology. Genetics, Molecular Biology and Evolution.' Page 250 :- "The law of segregation is also known as law of purity of gametes. The law states that the hybrids or heterozygotes of F/ generation have two contrasting characters or allelomorphs of dominant and recessive nature. These characters though remain together for long time but do not contaminate or mix with each other and separate or segregate at the time of gametogenesis, so that each gamete receives only one character either dominant or recessive." 98. The Experts of the Lucknow University have also given the opinion that both the alternatives 2 and 4 are correct. 99. The contesting opposite parties have further filed the opinions of the same three Experts whose names have been mentioned while dealing with Question No. 24 (above). 100. In the Book' Principles of Genetics by E.W. Sinnott. LC. Dunn & T. Dobzhansky (5th Edition) at page 57 the mechanism of segregation also called as Mendel's Law of Segregation is explained. In the same book in front of the diagrams of flowers shown under the heading "Segregation of Genes and Chromosomes" is noted :- "Diagram showing the character of the gametes in three generations following a cross between a red flowered and a white flowered plant. The gametes are represented by pollen grains and ovules. the black ones carrying the factor for red and the white ones that for white. In the (pink) F. dominance of red is not complete: but of the F gametes, half carry red and half white. In the F2, one-fourth of the plants are red-flowered, and all their gametes carry gene for red: and half are pink flowered, with half their gametes carrying red and half white: and one-fourth are white flowered, all their gametes carrying white. In the F2, one-fourth of the plants are red-flowered, and all their gametes carry gene for red: and half are pink flowered, with half their gametes carrying red and half white: and one-fourth are white flowered, all their gametes carrying white. The character of the offspring of these F2 types, when self-fertilized, is shown in the E generation." 101. No doubt, the opinions of the three Experts furnished by Rohilkhand University are in favour of the University but one of the three Experts, namely. Professor V.P. Singh in his opinion filed on behalf of Rohilkhand University has mentioned (on the basis of the Book' Principle of Genetics' by Gardner): "In one experiment Mendel corssed. Tall and Dwarf varieties of garden peas. All of the offspring in the Ft generation were Tall. The dwarf trait had disappeared in the F progeny. When the Tall hybrid plants were fertilised by their own pollen (self) and the Progeny (second generation of F2) were classified. Some progeny were Tall Some progeny were Dwarf, The missing trait appeared again following Mendelian law of segregation." 102. The other Expert. Professor R.S. Ambasht from the side of opposite party has given the view that the alternative No. 2 i.e. 'Principle of segregation is more correct. The third Expert has simply mentioned that the Principle of segregation is correct. 103. So it is evident that in the case of a plant heterozygous if undergone monohybrid cross between a tall and a dwarf plant the off springs in the next generation called R population will contain both the characters together without contamination of the two traits. But in the second generation called F_ population. if the tall hybrid plants are fertilised by their own pollen. their progeny can he classified as some plants being tall. some plants being dwarf; and according to certain authors some progeny will have both traits. In this way. the two traits after they have remained together at Fi generation reappear with purity of trait of each type in some progeny. Several authors have therefore used the expression principle of purity of gamete at F: stage but others call it the principle of segregation because according to them purity of gamete is not found in all the progeny at F, generation. Further. Several authors have therefore used the expression principle of purity of gamete at F: stage but others call it the principle of segregation because according to them purity of gamete is not found in all the progeny at F, generation. Further. it is contended by the learned counsel for the petitioners that in several books of Indian authors thought/ studied in Intermediate Botany Class authors have clearly mentioned that the law of segregation is the same as law of purity of gametes and both have been explained by them in the same way. Consequently the students who have studied such books should not he penalised for their answers in conformity with the views of the authors contained in their Books. This contention is not devoid' of force and substance. 104. So we are of the opinion that both the options namely. 2 and 4 are to be accepted as correct. Accordingly, those petitioners who have opted for alternative No. 4. are also entitled to 3 marks instead of one negative mark just like those of the candidates who have opted for key answer (i.e. alternative No. 2). 105. Now we take up the point pressed by the petitioner Ashish Jain in Writ Petition No. 7780 of 1987 and the petitioner Akash Jain of Writ Petition No. 784 of 1988 claiming marks in 'General Hindi paper on the ground that all the questions of that paper do not fall within the prescribed syllabus for C.P.M.T. In their writ petitions they have mentioned twelve questions as being out of course but during the course of arguments their counsel Sri D.P. Singh has pressed (and accordingly furnished a chart of) eight questions only as being out of course. They are specified in the chart furnished on 30-11-1988. 106. The syllabus prescribes a paper of 'General Hindi'. No paper of 'General Knowledge' as such is prescribed in the syllabus. Sri D.P. Singh learned counsel for the petitioners/specifically pressed that the question 'BUNIAD KE LEKHAK KAUN HAI' of Hindi paper is a question which is of General Knowledge or pertains to specialised Hindi course but cannot be said to be a question of 'General Hindi'. What is to be covered in the paper of 'General Hindi has been mentioned in the syllabus. What is to be covered in the paper of 'General Hindi has been mentioned in the syllabus. It says that the purpose of prescribing 'General Hindi is to ensure that the students have knowledge of ordinarily spoken Hindi and they may not face any difficulty in treating their patients due to the language in case of their selection in C. P. M.T. and passing the medical course. It is further clarified in the syllabus for Hindi that the paper of 'General Hindi is to be prepared accordingly. In this background the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners with regard to the aforementioned question does not seem to be devoid of force and substance. It is difficult to say that the question is a matter of that Hindi which is in the ordinary use. 'BUNIYAD' is a novel written by a Hindi Novelist with whose name. it is a student of Hindi Literature or of *General Knowledge' who can be expected to be familiar. Learned counsel for the petitioners referred to the syllabus and question papers of Public/Civil Services Examinations held by the State Public Service Commission. in which 'General Hindi paper is also prescribed. That is distinct and separate from the paper of Hindi Literature or General Knowledge paper. Questions covered under 'General Hindi' paper are of such type which go to test the knowledge of the candidates in understanding/ writing general Hindi or ordinarily spoken Hindi. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners that the question 'BUNIAD KE LEKHAK KAUN HAI' is a question outside the scope of General Hindi Paper prescribed for C.P.M.T., is correct and acceptable. 107. In the case of Yogendra Singh t supra), this Court has held that for a question which is outside the prescribed course, the petitioners were entitled to deletion of negative marks awarded to them but they were not entitled to positive marks claimed by them. We find no reason to differ with it. It is held that the petitioner Ashish Jain is entitled to deletion of the negative mark awarded to him in respect of aforementioned question but he is not entitled to any positive mark in respect of the same. The other petitioner Akash Jain had not at all attempted the same question. as such, he is not entitled to any credit for this question. 108. The other petitioner Akash Jain had not at all attempted the same question. as such, he is not entitled to any credit for this question. 108. There were seven other questions of Hindi paper pressed by Sri D.P. Singh during the course of arguments-as being out of course. They are mentioned in, chart dated 30-11-88 submitted by him. In respect of all those seven questions it is difficult to hold that they are the questions of specialised Hindi or Hindi Literature or are pure questions of General Knowledge not coverable in a General Hindi Paper. Hence. the stand of the petitioners with regard to them is not acceptable. Moreover, even if version of the petitioners that they are out of course would have been accepted with regard to these seven questions it would have made no difference in marks for these petitioners for the reason no credit of marks would have been available to them unless they have attempted any of those questions incorrectly. 'The chart submitted by Sri D.P. Singh shows that all the seven questions were either not at all attempted or were correctly attempted. 109. Learned counsel for the petitioner Pankaj Bhalla has moved an application to this effect that the cage-sheet (i.e. the answer sheet) of Physics paper which has been considered by the University and on the basis of which marks have, been credited in his favour. is not in his handwriting and there has been 'manipulation'. 'tampering' and 'mischief instead of the same. This has been 'seriously challenged from the side of Rohilkhand University. It is thus, a controversial point of fact whether the cage-sheet in question is or is not in the handwriting of the petitioner Pankaj Bhalla or in other words whether there has been fraud or forgery as alleged. It will not be appropriate to decide such controversial point of fact, in this case under Article 226 of the Constitution. They can be thrashed out in a Civil Suit. In taking this view we are supported by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petri, No. 85 of 1985 Sadhna Maheshwari v. Avadh University, Faizabad, decided on 24-1-1985. They can be thrashed out in a Civil Suit. In taking this view we are supported by a decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Writ Petri, No. 85 of 1985 Sadhna Maheshwari v. Avadh University, Faizabad, decided on 24-1-1985. S. 69,of the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973 does nest bar filing of a suit, in respect of an act alleged to be a forgery or is alleged to have been done by the University or its officer by playing fraud. The petitioners request for obtaining report of handwriting expert in respect of cage-sheet of Physics paper is, therefore. not allowed in the writ proceedings Learned counsel' for the petitioner then requested that the opposite parties may be directed not to destroy or weed out the record namely, the answer sheets etc. of the petitioner Pankaj Bhalla. so that the same may be available in case a civil suit is filed. The request seems to be reasonable. It is. therefore, directed that the opposite parties shall not weed out the relevant record pertaining to the petitioner till the limitation of filing the suit does not expire. 110. Learned counsel for the Rohilkhand University has challenged the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground that they have been filed beyond a period of 90 days from the date of declaration of the result of the petitioners. There is no time limit prescribed under the Constitution for filing writ under Article 226 of the Constitution. Having regard to the circumstances of the cases it cannot be said that the writ petition were filed after such inordinate delay as t entail dismissal on the ground of delay and laches. 111. Some of the petitioners have further sought relief to direct the opposite parties to prescribe and publish a list of text-books for the examinees of C.P.M.T. In this connection reference has been made to the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Samir Gupta (1983 All LJ 1220) (supra). The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, no doubt, made a mention on this point but did not give any direction for prescribing or publishing text-books for the examinees of C.P.M.T. We are also not inclined to give any such direction. 112. The Hon'ble Supreme Court has, no doubt, made a mention on this point but did not give any direction for prescribing or publishing text-books for the examinees of C.P.M.T. We are also not inclined to give any such direction. 112. We direct that the benefit of the revaluation on the basis of the conclusion reached above has to be given only to the candidates who have approached courts so far and not to any one who has failed to do so. Similar view was taken in the case of Yogendra Singh (supra) and Vikash Garg (supra). 113. In the case of Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, AIR 1983 SC 1230 : (1983 All LJ 1220) (para 22), the apex court has held : "We, however, direct that no fresh petitions should be entertained by the High Court and, of course, none will be entertained by us hereafter on the questions involved in these appeals arising out of the test which was held in 1982. The new academic session is due to commence within the next few days and these questions cannot be allowed to be raised in a leisurely fashion so as to disorganise the scheme of fresh admissions." 114. We are not scrutinising the cases or trying to find out how many marks each of the petitioners has secured. It is for Rohilkhand University to recalculate the marks in accordance with the findings and directions already given. After such calculation the petitioners or such of them as are entitled to succeed against the respective categories in which they claimed admission such as general male, general female etc. (for M.B.B.S., for B.D.S. or for Unani Degree Courses etc. as the case may be) shall be given admission to the course and college to which they may be found entitled in accordance with the normal principle. We direct that those of the petitioners who, on the basis of the revised marking as above, will be entitled to admission, should be given admission, in the current session. The Rohilkhand University shall recalculate the marks of the petitioners and declare their results within ten days on the basis of the same. The opposite parties shall give admission to such of the petitioners who become entitled on the basis of revised marks immediately, so that one year of the petitioners entitled for admission is not wasted. The Rohilkhand University shall recalculate the marks of the petitioners and declare their results within ten days on the basis of the same. The opposite parties shall give admission to such of the petitioners who become entitled on the basis of revised marks immediately, so that one year of the petitioners entitled for admission is not wasted. They shall also create the additional seats for such candidates. It may be clarified that those candidates who obtained the marks equal to or more than those secured by the last admitted candidate for different course, shall be given admission. We are informed that the result of the C.P.M.T. for 1988 was declared recently in November 1988. We are unable to hold that the.petitioners are bound .to be given the relief of admission in the Medical Colleges of their choice. It will, however, be open to the authorities to consider their cases in accordance with the general principle which has been followed or is being followed as held in the, case of Vikas (supra) and in other earlier cases. 115. No other point has been pressed before us. 116. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. No order as to costs. 117. Immediately after pronouncement of the judgment learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Rohilkhand University prayed for leave to file an appeal before Hon'ble Supreme Court. In our view no such question muchless substantial question of law is involved so as to grant leave prayed for. The prayer, therefore, is rejected. A copy of the judgment may be supplied to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of necessary charges within three days.