JUDGMENT 1. - These petitions raise a some-what difficult task for the Court to decide; whether the key answers to questions No. 30 and 82 of Botany Paper ('D' series) in P.M.T. 1996 examination are correct answers ? A related question of significance also arises about the scope of judicial scrutiny in such matters. 2. The petitioners herein applied for admission to the Medical College in the State of Rajasthan. There are five Medical Colleges in the State and admission is granted on the basis of result of a combined'Pre-Medical Test (for short P.M.T.) which was held in the year 1996 as per guidelines/instructions for admission of candidates to various Medical Colleges issued by the Government of Rajasthan. The University of Rajasthan was entrusted with the task of holding test in which four subjects, namely, Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Botany were prescribed. The dispute relates to questions No. 30 and 82 of Botany paper ('D' Series) and according to the petitioners, the answers given by them are correct answers while key answers do not indicate correct answers, as a result of which they were awarded less marks. If they had been awarded correct marks, then they would have been placed in either select list or reserve list of candidates. 3. In Writ Petition No. 4522/96, the dispute is regarding question No. 30 only; while in Writ Petition No. 4292/96 it relates to questions No. 30 and 82. The petitioner, in Writ Petition No. 4522/96 has secured 264 marks in Botany and according to him, he is entitled to get four more marks i.e. 3 marks for giving correct answer to question No. 30 and one mark which was deducted for giving incorrect answer of question No. 30. According to him, in case he was awarded 268 marks correctly, then, he would have been placed in the list of selected candidates. Similarly, petitioner in Writ Petition No. 4293/96 was awarded 256 marks in Botany subject and he claims 264 marks by adding 8 marks for correct answers to questions No. 30 and 82. 4. Questions No. 30 and 82 (D-Series) of Botany paper read as under:- "Q. 30-Witches broom disease is caused by (1) Mycoplasm (2) Bacteria (3) Fungi (4) All the above Q. 82- Which of the following plant organ can respire in the absence of oxygen ? (1) Leaf (2) Root (3) Stem (4) Seed 5. 4. Questions No. 30 and 82 (D-Series) of Botany paper read as under:- "Q. 30-Witches broom disease is caused by (1) Mycoplasm (2) Bacteria (3) Fungi (4) All the above Q. 82- Which of the following plant organ can respire in the absence of oxygen ? (1) Leaf (2) Root (3) Stem (4) Seed 5. Shri Jinesh Jain, appearing for the petitioners, vehemently contended that correct answer to question No. 30 is alternative No. (4) and correct answer to question No. 82 is alternative No. (2). In support of his contention, learned counsel strongly placed reliance on the Text Book of Botany written by Dr. G.S. Nathawat, Ex- Head of the Department of Botany, University of Rajasthan. There is no dispute that the above contention of Shri Jain gets support from the Text Book of Botany by Dr. G.S. Nathawat in relation to question No. 30. For question No. 82 learned counsel placed reliance on the sentence," ruk vkSj ifr;ka] ikS/ks ds ewyHkwr (basic) vax gksrs gSaA " in a Book titled " ifjp;kRed foKku " by Dr. Ashok Bindra and also on the followinfg recital in a Book for Class-VIth: "8.1 Specific Parts of Plants: Look carefully at each plant that you see around. When you look at a plant, what parts can you see above the ground ? You know that plants have roots, stems leaves and flowers as well as fruits." Learned counsel also contended that seed is the product of fertilisation in angios permic plants as observed by Dr. Gyanendra Sharma in his book `Modern Biology' Vol. I -Botany for Class-VI. 6. After receipt of notice of writ petition, the Controller - P.M.T./P.V.T-96 Examinations, constituted a Committee of five experts in the subject, under convenorship of Dr. Ashwani Kumar, Associate Professor and Head. Deptt, of Botany, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur to examine the issues raised by the petitioner Naresh Kumar Jindal in his petition. The Committee consisted the following experts: 1. Dr. Ashwani Kumar, Associate Professor and Head, Department of Botany, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Convener. 2. Prof. G.S. Nathawat, Retd. Professor of Botany. Member. 3. Prof. Uma Kant, Retd. Professor of Botany, University of Rajasthan. Member 4. Dr. Nagendra Bhardwaj, Associate Professor of Botany, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Member. 5. Dr. K.P. Sharma, Associate Professor of Botany, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Member. Convener. 2. Prof. G.S. Nathawat, Retd. Professor of Botany. Member. 3. Prof. Uma Kant, Retd. Professor of Botany, University of Rajasthan. Member 4. Dr. Nagendra Bhardwaj, Associate Professor of Botany, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Member. 5. Dr. K.P. Sharma, Associate Professor of Botany, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. Member. The Committee held its meeting on September 27, 1996 in R.A. Podar Institute of Management, University of Rajasthan, Jaipur. The original Minutes of the Committee have been produced before this Court which read as under: "The Committee gone through the writ petition and the points raised by the petitioner regarding question No. 30 and question No. 82 of Botany ('D' Series) of P.M.T.-96 are reproduced below Q.No. 30. Witches broom disease is caused by- (1) Mycoplasm (2) Bacteria (3) Fungi (4) All the above Q. No. 82. Which of the following plant organ. can respire in the absence of oxygen ? (1) Leaf (2) Root (3) Stem (4) Seed The Expert Committee examined the case thoroughly and the correct answer of question No. 30 is : One (Mycoplasm) and regarding question No. 82, the correct answer is : Four (Seed). The answers of the above questions are the same as above as per the Answer Key published by the Controller, P.M.T.-96.The meeting ended with a vote of thanks to the Chair. Sd/- Sd/- Prof. G.S. Nathawat Dr.'Ashwani Kumar Sd/- Sd/- Prof. Uma Kant Dr. Nagendra Bhardwaj Sd/- Sd/- Dr. K.P. Sharma Dr. Mrs. Anjila Saxena In the back drop of the above facts, the question arises, whether any interference is called for by this Court ? 7. It is not disputed before me that all the five members of the Committee were experts and eminent scholars in the speciality i.e. the subject of Botany. Prof. G.S. Nathawat, on whose opinion great reliance was placed by the petitioner in relation to question No. 30 was also one of the members of the Committee. Learned counsel for the petitioner also agrees that opinion of the members of the Committee can not be stated to be biased and it has significant value, but, according to him, if two views are possible as per different opinion of the experts, benefit of doubt should go in favour of the students who are fighting for their career. With all sympathies to the petitioners I am unable to subscribe to this contention. With all sympathies to the petitioners I am unable to subscribe to this contention. Firstly, in academic matters, the courts should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own view in preferencb to those formulated by professional persons possessing technical expertise and rich experience on the subject. In the instant case, the Committee of experts has unanimously, opined the key answers, published by the Controller of the examination, to the questions in dispute to be correct answers. This opinion of the experts cannot be made a subject of judicial scrutiny simply because, some authors have expressed their views differently in their books or articles on the subject. Interference by the Court in such matters should be in rare' and exceptional circumstances, if it is found beyond the realm of doubt that key answer published by the Controller of Examination is incorrect. Secondly, even in case of doubt as to which of the two views/answers to a question is correct or if both the views/answers may be possible, then, too, the answer accepted/adopted by the University as key answer should be given preference and adhered to. This is necessary to keep the whole system of examination workable and intact. Efforts of the court should be to see that the examination system is not rendered unworkable by creating doubts and uncertainties. 8. It is true that such lapses should not have a recurrence in a competitive examination which involve career of a large number of students. For this, the Apex Court of the country has given following suggestions in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta and others ( 1983 4 SCC 309 ) which may be followed by the authorities : "If the State Government wants to avoid a recurrence of such lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a text-book which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the Combined Pre Medical Test. Education has more than its fair share of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problems are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for various applicants will come forward for doing the job and forces and counter. forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. Numerous problems are bound to arise in the compilation of such a text-book for various applicants will come forward for doing the job and forces and counter. forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in over-coming those difficulties, the argument will not be open to the students that the answer contained in the text-book which is prescribed for the Test is not the correct answer. Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper-setters.. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, in a system of `multiple choice objective-type test', care must be taken to see that questions having an ambiguous import are not set in the papers. That kind of system of examination involves merely the tick-marking of the correct answer. It leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is `yes' or `no'. That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal. Lastly, if the attention of the University is drawn to any defect in a key answer or any ambiguity in a question set in the examination, prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no marks assigned to it." 9. The up-shot of the above discussion is that no relief can be given to the petitioners in these petitions. Consequently, the petitions are dismissed with no order as to costs.Writ Petition Dismissed Compliance With (1983) 4 SCC 309 Emphased on Authorities in Competitive Examinations. *******