JUDGMENT G. C. Bharuka, J. These writ applications have been filed by the petitioners for quashing the notice as contained in Annexure-1 to the writ applications published by the Controller of Examination, Health Services, by which the Post Graduate Medical Admission Test, 1992 (in Short P.G.M.A.T.-1992) held on 30.8.1992 has been cancelled and fresh examination has been Scheduled to be held on 10.1.1993 in respect of all the candidates, who had appeared in the said P.G.M.A.T.-1992 examination. 2. The petitioners are M.B.B.S. graduates. In accordance with the prospectus for P.G.M.A.T.-1992 (Annexure-2) a test was held on 30.8.1992. But before the result could be finally published, a writ application being C.W.J.C. No. 9457 of 1992 - Dr. Ashok Prasad and others Vs. The State of Bihar and another (Annexure 5 to C.W.J.C. No. 12597 of 1992) was filed in this Court for restraining the Respondent - State from declaring the result because certain infirmities had appeared in the question papers. The grievance was based on Item no. IV of the prospectus Clauses (iv) and (v) of Item no. IV of the prospectus are relevant, which arc being quoted hereunder; IV EXAMINATION. (iv) There will be three sets of question papers marked 'A', B', 'C' wherein questions remaining the same, but serial number of question will be variable. (v) There shall be two papers of two hours duration each containing 150 multiple choice questions. The number of questions for those will be distributed approximately as given below. What happened is that though in all the three sets, subject to variance in serial number the questions were required to be the same, but out of 300 questions 20 questions relating to the subject microbiology Paper-1 slightly varied in the three sets out of 1200 total marks in all the questions, the said 20 questions carried 80 marks. 3. After hearing all the concerned parties, a Bench of this Court to which one of us (G. C. Bharuka, J) was a member, keeping in view the facts that the sessions was already delayed by (our months and also keeping in view the interest of all concerned, held that instead of holding a fresh examination, it will be proper if the marks in relation to the aforementioned questions are not taken into consideration and the result be published by taking into consideration the questions carrying 1120 marks. It was also directed that since studies in other into institutions have already commenced therefore, the result should be immediately published. In view of this judgment the result of the test was published. 4. Now from the impugned notice (Annexure-1), it transpires that the Government has decided to cancel the very examination which was held on 30-8-1992 on the ground that doe to some technical error in the computer the result was not a correctly computed, which resulted in incorrect publication of the same. 5. A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of the Respondents, which has been sworn in by the Controller of Examination, respondent no. 3 himself. The chart showing set-wise and paper-wise marks obtained by the candidates as also the first and the second merit list have been produced before us. It has been admitted in the counter affidavit, as also at the Bar by the learned Advocate General that the examination was held fairly and neither there was any allegation of use of any unfair means at the examination by the candidates nor any other illegality or irregularity was alleged to have been committed at the said examination. It has also been admitted that evaluation of the answer-books/sheets has been done properly by the computer and there is no error in this regard. The chart produced before us clearly shows the number obtained by each candidate in Paper-1 and Paper II at the said examination. The mistake, which appears to have been committed by the computer is at the stage of preparing the merit list. It is quite bas is that for preparing the merit list the marks obtained by each candidate in both the papers was (sic) up. But it seems that out of 2406 candidates, who had appeared at the test, the discrepancy had occurred in the result of 248 candidates. The cause of the discrepancy, as has been explained to us and as is also apparent from the first merit list produced before us, is that because of some error somewhere in the programming or date processing the computer has taken the marks obtained by these candidates in Paper-II as 'zero'. It is clearly a mistake apparent on the face of the record and is capable of being corrected by referring to the chart containing paper wise marks obtained by the candidates. 6. It is clearly a mistake apparent on the face of the record and is capable of being corrected by referring to the chart containing paper wise marks obtained by the candidates. 6. It has been also Slated by the learned Advocate General that a soon as the above said mistake came to the notice of the respondents, the personnel’s of the Computer centre were called and they having realised the mistake, after debugging the error ill the computer, have made out a second merit list, which is now free from the error. The said list has also been produced before us. According to the statements made in this counter affidavit in para 5 (v), fresh merit list prepared by the computer will alter the result of mere1y 51 candidates out of 231 in general category. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the Intervenors have sought to support the impugned Government action by raising the same objactions which were the subject matter in C.W.J.C. No. 9457 of 1992 (supra) but said dispute having already been resolved by this Court and the judgment having acquired its finality, the Intervenors can not be allowed to re-agitate once again. It was also submitted by Mr. Mukherji that for maintain the fairness and the credibility of the examination, the decision of the Government should be upheld. Mr. Banwari sharma appearing for the another set of intervenors has submitted that the Government is guilty of not trying to defend its action in proper perspective, though the decision was taken in right direction. 8. In the above said factual back-ground it has to be decided as to whether only cropping of clerical error in preparation of final merit list can justify the cancellation of the examination as a whole. 9. A similar question had fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Kumari Anamika Mishra Vs. U.P. Public Service Commission, reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C., 461. In this case the Service Commission had held a test for recruitment to certain post. The examination was in two stages-written and interview/personality test. After written examination was over, on the basis of result thereof, the successful candidates upto a base Limit were to be called for interview. U.P. Public Service Commission, reported in A.I.R. 1990 S.C., 461. In this case the Service Commission had held a test for recruitment to certain post. The examination was in two stages-written and interview/personality test. After written examination was over, on the basis of result thereof, the successful candidates upto a base Limit were to be called for interview. On account of improper feeding in the computer some of the candidates, who had better performance in written examination were not called and the candidates securing lessor marks were called for interview and thereupon finally selected when the Commission learnt about this fact, it decided to cancel the entire examination and directed for re-holding of the same. On being challenged by way of writ application the High Court affirmed the action of the Service Commission. The writ petitioner went in appeal to the Supreme Court which was allowed. The Supreme Court took the view that; “When no defeat was pointed out in regard to the written examination and the sole objection was confined to the exclusion of a group of Successful candidates in the written examination from the interview, there was no justification for canceling the written part of the recruitment examination. On the other hand, the situation could have been appropriately met by setting aside the recruitment and asking for a fresh interview of all eligible candidates on the basis of written examination and selecting those who on the basis of written and freshly held interview became eligible for selection.” 10. In our opinion, the dispute in question is aptly covered by the dictum of the Supreme Court in the above referred case. In the present case as well, there is no infirmity either in the holding of the examination or in the evaluation of the answer-books/sheets, The only mistake, which has been committed is in the merit list in respect of certain candidates, which is rectifiable and, as a matter of fact, a correct merit list has already been prepared. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned decision of the State Government as evidenced by the notice (Annexure-1) by which the examination as a whole, held on 30.9.92, has been cancelled is unwarranted and unsustainable in law being arbitrary and based on irrelevant considerations. Therefore, in my opinion, the impugned decision of the State Government as evidenced by the notice (Annexure-1) by which the examination as a whole, held on 30.9.92, has been cancelled is unwarranted and unsustainable in law being arbitrary and based on irrelevant considerations. It is directed that steps for publication of the result and taking of admission in the post-graduate courses in question should be taken up by the Government immediately in accordance with the correct merit list and the provisions of the prospectus subject to this Court's judgment in C.W.J.C. No. 9457 of 1992 (supra). 11. Accordingly, the impugned notice (Annexure-1) is quashed and the writ applications are allowed. But keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this ease, there will be no order as to costs. Narayan Roy, J. I agree. Applications allowed.