JUDGMENT P. C. Balakrishna Menon, C. J.— The petitioners are candidates for admission to the M. B. B. S. course in the Indira Gandhi Medical College Simla commencing from academic year 1990-91 They are all eligible candidates as per the prospectus issued by the Government of Himachal Pradesh in that behalf. There are altogether 65 seats out of which 27 fall in the reserve pool Ten seats are reserved to be filled on the basis of All India Entrance Test to be conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education. There are altogether 28 seats to be filled on the basis of open merit Out of the il seats in the reserve pool, five are to be nominated by the Government of India. Admission to the course for the 28 seats in the open merit and the 22 seats in the reserve pool is based on merit determined after a pre-medical test to be conducted by the Himachal Pradesh University. The test for the course beginning from the academic year 1990-91 was held on 16-6-19°0. Results of the test were announced on 9-7-1990. The petitioners had on the basis of a provision in the prospectus, applied to the Vice-Chancellor for re-checking their marks obtained in the pre-medical test. The applications for re-checking, we are told, are even now pending before the Vice-Chancellor. Thereafter on 11-7-1990 the petitioners through their Counsel made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor to disclose the key answers for the multiple choice questions given by the paper setters. Annexure P-l is a-copy of the petition submitted to the Vice-Chancellor for the disclosure of the key answers. It may be stated at this stage that the pre-medical test is of the M. C. Q type (Multiple Choice Questions). The question paper itself contains the suggested answers indicated against each question. The candidates are required to tick the correct answer from out of the four answers given for each question. There are 100 questions in each paper and if the candidate ticks the correct answer, he gets one mark for the question Key answers are provided for by the paper setters The pre-medical test is in three subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. 2. There are 100 questions in each paper and if the candidate ticks the correct answer, he gets one mark for the question Key answers are provided for by the paper setters The pre-medical test is in three subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry and Biology. 2. The candidates had requested the Vice-Chancellor for disclosure of the key answers on the basis of the decision of a Division Bench of this Court in Ashish Sharma v. State of Himachal Pradesh, reported in (1990) 1 Sim LC 113. In that case the Division Bench held at page 118:— "We feel that fairness demands that the key answers should also be published alongwith the result of the Test. If any answer is clearly demonstrated to be wrong in the sense that no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct, appropriate measures in that respect should be taken by the University. If the attention of the University is drawn to a defect of this nature in a key answer or to any ambiguity to the question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspected question will be excluded from the paper and on marks assigned to it, as was said by the Supreme Court in Kanpur Universitys case." Key answers were not disclosed inspite of the representation Annexure P-l in that behalf. 3. The merit list was finalised on 21-7-1990 and published in various news papers on 22-7-1990. The petitioners had on 21-7-1990 filed this writ -petition for a direction to be issued to the University to furnish them the key answers alongwith the proforma question papers and also to re-check and re-evaluate their answer-sheets. The writ petition came up for admission on 23-7-1990. On that day, Advocate Shri Jishtu took notice on behalf of the University and agreed to make available key answers and photo-stat copies of the blank question papers to the Counsel of the petitioners within 48 hours. A Division Bench of this Court accepting the statement of the Counsel directed the key answers and photo-stat copies of blank question papers to be furnished to the learned Counsel for the petitioners. A Division Bench of this Court accepting the statement of the Counsel directed the key answers and photo-stat copies of blank question papers to be furnished to the learned Counsel for the petitioners. This court in C M. P. No. 753 of 1990 on the same day passed an order restraining the respondents from giving effect to the finalised merit list until further orders* The key answers were supplied by the University to the learned Counsel for the petitioners on 25-7-1990, The petitioners thereafter made a representation to the Vice-Chancellor on 28-7-1990 complaining that several of the key answers provided for by the paper setters are not correct and are totally misleading. They had on the same day filed C. M. P. No. 784 of 1990 before this court praying for examination of the correctness of the key answers with reference to Annexure P-4 produced alongwith the petition or in the alternative to appoint a committee of experts to verify the correctness of the key answers provided tor by the paper setters. Annexure P-3 produced alongwith C. M. P. No 784 of 1990 is a copy of the representation submitted to the Vice-Chancellor complaining against the mistakes in the key answers provided by the paper setters. Annexure P-4 is a compilation of extracts from standard text books and the opinion expressed by experts to show that the disputed key answers were wrong. The petitioners had disputed the correctness of the key answers given to 12 questions ia Chemistry, seven questions in Biology and nine questions in Physics. On a consideration of Annexure P-4 compilation with reference to the key answers disclosed by the University in regard to these disputed questions, we felt that the petitioners had made out a prima facie case to have the key answers provided for the disputed questions re-checked by a committee of experts. We, therefore, on 31-7-1990 directed the Vice-Chancellor of the University to depute three Professors/Readers in each of the three subjects to be present before the Registrar of this court on 4-8-1990 at 11 a.m. for the purpose of considering the correctness of the key answers of the disputed questions provided for by the paper setters and if those answers are found to be wrong, to give the correct answers to those questions. The Vice-Chancellor deputed three experts for each of the three subjects and after considering the key answers for the disputed questions the experts pointed out that the key answers in respect of nine questions in Chemistry, one question in Biology and two questions in Physics are wrong. They have also given the correct answers to these questions. The experts in Chemistry found that question No. 30 in the Chemistry paper was incomplete but in regard to that question marks had been given to all candidates as per certificate attached from the moderators available on record In regard to question No. 75 in the Chemistry paper the experts found that none of the key answers provided by the paper setters is correct but the moderators had wrongly awarded marks to those candidates who had ticked answers (a) or (b). It is excluding question No. 30 that the experts found that the key answers found for nine questions in Chemistry, one question in Biology and two questions in Physics were wrong and the experts had furnished the correct answers to these questions. On receipt of this report, this court on 7-8-1990 passed an order directing the University to re-evaluate the answer-sheets of those candidates in the general category who had secured more than 200 marks in the aggregate and also the answer sheets of all candidates in the reserved category. 200 marks were taken to be the cut off line for the re-evaluation of the answer sheets of the general category for the reason that the last candidate in the merit list already published had secured 216 marks in the aggregate. We, therefore, thought that it is not necessary to re-evaluate all the papers except in regard to those candidates who had secured atleast a minimum of 200 marks in the aggregate We also directed issue of notices to those candidates shown as selected in the open merit list as well as in the list relating to the reserved category, published by the University. We had in our order dated 7-8-1990 made the following observations in directing issue of notices to those candidates shown as selected in the list published by the University : "No candidate has yet been admitted The University has only prepared a merit list of persons selected in the general as well as in the reserved categories. We had in our order dated 7-8-1990 made the following observations in directing issue of notices to those candidates shown as selected in the list published by the University : "No candidate has yet been admitted The University has only prepared a merit list of persons selected in the general as well as in the reserved categories. The mere preparation of a merit list may not confer any right on the candidates shown as selected. Nevertheless* we are of the view that they should also be given an. opportunity of being heard before the writ petition is finally disposed of." 4. In pursuance to the notices issued, several of those candidates in the select list have appeared through Counsel. Advocates S/Shri D. D. Sood, G. D. Verma, Ashok Jain, A. K. Goel, Prem Goel and Miss 8andana Kuthiala have appeared on their behalf. We have heard arguments of Counsel for the petitioners, the different Counsel appearing for the candidates selected, Counsel for the University and also the learned Advocate General. 5. We had in our order dated 7-8-1990 directed the University to re-evaluate the answer-sheets of candidates who had ^obtained more than 200 marks in the general category and all candidates in the reserved category in the light of the key answers furnished by the experts appointed by this court, in compliance to this direction Counsel for the University has produced tbe revised results after re-evaluation. He has also produced a revised select list prepared by the University of candidates in the merit quota as well as in the reserved quota. The list furnished contains also the names of candidates in the waiting list in both the categories. After hearing Counsel appearing for the contesting candidates, we are satisfied about the correctness of the key answers furnished by the experts nominated by this court. In fact nothing has been brought out to discredit their opinion and the answers furnished by them. Those experts are Professors and Readers of the Himachal Pradesh University in the respective subjects having both teaching and research experience. 6. In fact nothing has been brought out to discredit their opinion and the answers furnished by them. Those experts are Professors and Readers of the Himachal Pradesh University in the respective subjects having both teaching and research experience. 6. Learned Counsel Shri D D. Sood, appearing for some of the contesting candidates submits that these candidates have received intimation from the Principal of the Medical College about their selection and requiring them to appear for medical examination and also to produce their certificates in original for the purpose of admission to the M. B. B. S. course. Counsel further submits that on the face of the representation contained in the merit list several of these candidates had not persued their applications for admission in other colleges. Counsel, therefore, submits that the authorities concerned are now estopped from taking up the stand that the merit list published by the University is not correct for the reason of a mistake in the key answers provided for by the paper setters. We find it difficult to accept this submission based on the "principle of promissory estoppel. From the dates mentioned earlier in this judgment, it is seen that the merit list was finalised by the University only on 21-7-1990 and was published in the news papers on 22-7-1990. This court had on 23-7-1990 passed an interim direction that the merit list published will not be given effect to until further orders of this court. The candidates who rely on the merit list prepared by the University had hardly time to give up their per suit for admission in other colleges or for other courses. 22nd July was a Sunday and the interim order not to give effect to the finalised merit list prepared by the University was passed by this court on 23-7-1990 the very next working day after the merit list was finalised by the University There was, therefore, no time for these candidates to act on any representation contained in the merit list published by the University. That apart, we have found based on the answers furnished by the experts nominated by this court that the key answers furnished by the paper setters in respect of some of the questions are wrong Those candidates who obtained marks on such wrong answers for the questions are not entitled to take advantage of their own mistake to sustain the plea of promissory estoppel It is also pointed out that the communication issued by the Principal to these candidates has clearly shown that they are only provisionally selected. It would also show that their selection was not final. We, therefore, overrule the plea based on the principle of promissory estoppel. 7. The Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta and others, (1983) 4 SCC 309, considering a similar case, observed: — "We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of ^reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students in U. P. Those text books leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect." It is further observed in the same page: "If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong." 8. The petitioners in this case have produced material by way of the compilation contained in Annexure P-4 to show that some of the key answers provided for by the paper setters are wrong. It was in that con text that we thought it necessary to have the matter examined by experts. The petitioners in this case have produced material by way of the compilation contained in Annexure P-4 to show that some of the key answers provided for by the paper setters are wrong. It was in that con text that we thought it necessary to have the matter examined by experts. We have already found that the experts have given the correct opinion that in regard to nine questions in Chemistry, one question in Biology and two questions in Physics the key answers are wrong. Those candidates, who had not given the correct answers cannot be allowed to take advantage of their own mistake. 9. A Division Bench of this court in Ashish Sharmas case in the passage quoted (supra), had thought that the Supreme Court in the Kanpur University case had directed that the suspected questions should be excluded from the paper and no mark assigned to it. The Supreme Court in the said case had in fact approved the decision of the High Court directing marks to be assigned to those questions where the candidates had given the correct answers inspite of the wrong key answers furnished by the paper setters. The Supreme Court observed at page 317:— "If the key answer was not wrong as it has turned out to be, they would have succeeded in getting admission. In view of the findings of the High Court, the question naturally arose as to how the marks were to be allotted to the respondents for the three^ questions answered by them and which were wrongly assessed by the University* The High Court has held that the respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks for each of the questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very questions, since I mark was deducted from their total for each of the questions wrongly answered by them. Putting it briefly, such of the respondents as are found to have attempted the three questions or any of them would be entitled to an addition of 4 marks per question." 10. It is thus clear that the Supreme Court had approved the direction for re-evaluation with reference to the questions for which the paper setters had given the wrong key answers. 11. It is thus clear that the Supreme Court had approved the direction for re-evaluation with reference to the questions for which the paper setters had given the wrong key answers. 11. For the foregoing reasons we direct the University to publish the fresh select list produced in this court in a sealed cover forthwith for the purpose of admission to the M B. B. S. course in the Indira Gandhi Medical College commencing from the academic year 1990-91. The Supreme Court in Kanpur University case had also given the following directions :— "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." 12, On the same principle we direct that there will be no more re-checking of the answer-sheets at the instance of any of the candidates who had taken the Pre-medical test for the year 1990-91. The writ petition is allowed as indicated above. No costs. Writ petition allowed. -