JUDGMENT C.K. Thakker, C.J.—Admitted. Mr. S.S. Mittal, learned Counsel appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No. 1, whereas Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, appears and waives service of notice of admission on behalf of respondent No.2. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioners for an appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondents to call for key answer to question No. 39 in the subject of Biology at Combined Pre-Medical Entrance Test for the academic session 2000-2001, to grant one additional mark to the petitioners for the answer given by them, to rearrange the merit list and to take consequential action on the basis of such merit list and undertake exercise of counselling and grant admission on the basis of fresh merit list. 3. The case of the petitioners is that both of them cleared 10+2 examination and qualified themselves for appearing in Combined Pre-Medical Entrance Test for Graduate Courses in medicine /dental surgery for academic session 2000-2001. Both the petitioners intended to get admission in MBBS/BDS. For the said purpose, the petitioners approached respondent-University They obtained Prospectus of Combined Pre-Medical Entrance Test for Graduate (MBBS/BDS) course in the State of Himachal Pradesh. Petitioner No. 1 was given Roll No. 2778, whereas petitioner No. 2 was given Roll No. 3121 for appearing at the Combined Pre-Medical Entrance Test. Admissions were to be given on merits in Indira Gandhi Medical College, Shimla, Rajendra Prasad Medical College, Tanda and Dental Colleges, Shimla and Sundernagar. 4. It was stated by the petitioners that Entrance Test was conducted by the respondent-University. The Prospectus contains important instructions. Clause 3 prescribes eligibility of candidates, whereas Clause 4 gives details of competitive examination. Clause 4.2, of the Prospectus is relevant for the purpose of deciding the controversy raised in the present petition and it may be quoted in extenso : "4.2 The examination shall consist of one written paper only in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry (including Organic Chemistry) and Biology in accordance with the syllabi of studies based on NCERT Books of the academic session according to which the 10 + 2 (includes 11th and 12th class) examination was conducted by the Himachal Pradesh Board of School Education in the year of the competitive examination concerned. The medium of examination shall be English. The question papers will be objective (MCQ) type." 5. The medium of examination shall be English. The question papers will be objective (MCQ) type." 5. Clause 4.3 lays down method for determination of merits on the basis of aggregate number of marks obtained in the entrance test by the candidate. Clause 4.4 states that the result will be displayed on the Notice Board ^f the University alongwith question paper and its key answer. Clause 4.5 provides for rechecking of answer sheet for any mistake in totalling or non marking of any answer given by the candidate in the Combined Entrance Test. Clause 4.6 is consequential in nature, which provides for displaying of marks on the Notice Board of the University after rechecking, if any. 6. Clause 5 contains "General Instructions/ It has been stated therein that the examination consists of one paper of 150 questions in all of three hours. It is also clarified that the test is of objective type. In Clause 5.10, it has been stated: “The test is of objective type and candidates will be provided with a Question Booklet and on OMR answer sheet. In the Question Booklet, there will be 150 questions serially numbered from 001 to 150. Each question will be followed by four responses marked A, B, C and D, of these four responses only one will be the correct or the most appropriate response.” (Emphasis supplied) 7. In Clause 5.19 "writing of responses" has also been given by way of illustration. The said clause is reproduced hereinbelow : "5.19 Writing of Responses : There will be four alternatives for each of the question numbering 001 to 150. The candidate will indicate his/her response to the question by darkening the appropriate circle/ovals completely. For example Question No. 008 in the Question Booklet reads as follows: Qutab Minar is situated in (A) Delhi (B) Bombay (C) Agra (D) Bangalore The correct response to this question is (A) Delhi." 8. Clause 5.23 declares that each question carries one mark and there is no negative marking. 9. From the above clauses, it was abundantly clear that a merit list was to be prepared of aggregate marks based on objective type of examination. Though the paper was of 150 marks, two questions were not correctly framed in the subject of Chemistry and the responses provided were misleading. It was, therefore, decided that the total marks would be confined to 148. Though the paper was of 150 marks, two questions were not correctly framed in the subject of Chemistry and the responses provided were misleading. It was, therefore, decided that the total marks would be confined to 148. According to the petitioners, a merit list was prepared and displayed on Notice Board on August 3, 2000. Petitioner No. 1 was shown to have secured 121 marks out of 148 marks whereas petitioner No, 2 was shown to have obtained 123 marks out of 148 marks. 10. Now, in the subject of Biology, question No. 39 read as under: "In arthropods, pheromones are perceived by : (a) eyes (b) antennae (c) receptors (d) pincers". Out of above four responses, students were expected to exercise only one option (correct or most appropriate, as stated in Clause 5.10 of the Prospectus, reproduced earlier). 11. Now, in the key answer displayed on the Notice Board of the University, right answer was stated to be c, i.e., receptors. The case of the petitioners, however, was that the key answer as accepted by the University was demonstrably wrong. The prescribed test book for Biology at 10 + 2 level published by the National Council of Education Research and Training (NCERT for short), for class 11th authored by S. Mahadevan, Safar Futehally and D. Lahiry, stated as under: "Sensory structures in arthropods are antennae for perceiving odour, eyes, statocysts or balance organs, receptors for taste (located in their feet in insects) and sound receptors (in chirping crickets and cicadas). Arthropods, particularly insects, also communicate by chemicals called PHEROMONES. Some pheromones are sex attractants, by which the males, using their antennae, can locate females very far away." 12. According to the petitioners, two things were amply clear. Firstly, the correct answer was b antennae and not c receptors, the latter being demonstrably wrong. It was further their case that reading of the passage from the prescribed text book went to show that pheromones could not be perceived by receptors, but only by antennae. Secondly as per the prescribed text book, function of receptors was confined to test, which was not a right response to the question framed. Since key answer was wrong and option given by the petitioners was correct, they could not be deprived of one mark. 13. Secondly as per the prescribed text book, function of receptors was confined to test, which was not a right response to the question framed. Since key answer was wrong and option given by the petitioners was correct, they could not be deprived of one mark. 13. It was also stated by the petitioners that several students made representation to the University that key answer was wrong and correct answer was antennae and one mark should be given to them for giving right answer as per the prescribed text book published by NCERT. The University, however, did not pay any heed and, hence, they were constrained to approach this Court by filing the present petition. 14. Notice was issued, pursuant to which, the respondents appeared. Since the matter pertained to admission to MBBS/BDS course, we heard it finally by giving time to the respondent-University for filing a counter. 15. In affidavit-in-reply filed by the respondent-University, it was admitted that key answer to question No. 39 in the subject of Biology was c, i.e., receptors. But it was denied that the key answer was demonstrably wrong. It was stated that the questions of each subject of Combined Pre-Medical Test 2000 were set by experienced eminent paper-setters. In Biology, the expert/paper-setter elucidated the position, which showed that the key answer was correct. 16. Justifying the key answer, the deponent (Registrar of the respondent-University) stated: "1. Receptors are the only sites where a stimulus can be received. Receptors perceive the pheromones which is a chemical (olfactory) stimulus. The molecules of pheromones must come in contact with the receptors to elicit a response. 2. In arthropods chemoreceptors which can perceive pheromones are located on antennae and other parts of the body, such a mouth parts of many insects, tarsi (terminal parts of legs) of bees, flies and lepidoptera and ovipositors (egg laying apparatus) of some wasps. Receptors are present also on head, thorax and abdomen of various arthropods in addition to antennae. Pheromones are perceived by receptors, whether on antennae or on other parts of the body. 3. Antennae have different types of receptors for perception of temperature, humidity and chemical stimuli. The chemoreceptors of olfactory receptors perceive pheromones. 4. In one group of arthropods (class and order Protura) antennae are totally absent. A pair of Pseudoculi (false eyes) with olfactory and chemosensory receptors is present in such insects. 5. 3. Antennae have different types of receptors for perception of temperature, humidity and chemical stimuli. The chemoreceptors of olfactory receptors perceive pheromones. 4. In one group of arthropods (class and order Protura) antennae are totally absent. A pair of Pseudoculi (false eyes) with olfactory and chemosensory receptors is present in such insects. 5. If a question is asked where a human being perceives light, the correct answer would be eyes (not head). Similarly, the correct answer for the question on pheromones is receptors.” 17. It was, therefore, submitted that the key answer was correct and the petitioners had no reason to make grievance against the action taken by the University and the petition deserved to be dismissed. 18. We have heard Mr. D.D. Sood, learned Senior Counsel, instructed by Mr D. Dadwal, Counsel for the petitioners, Mr. S.S. Mittal, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1-University and Mr. M.L. Chauhan, learned Deputy Advocate General, for respondent No. 2. 19. Before dealing with the contention raised by the learned Counsel for the petitioners, we must observe that we are quite conscious and mindful of the limited jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in such matters. 20. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, (1984) 4 SCC 27, it was indicated by the Apex Court that in academic matters involving technical expertise, ordinarily a Court of law should not interfere. It should adopt a practical and contextual approach. In paragraph 29, the Court stated the principle thus : "Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice." 21. Keeping the above observations and limited jurisdiction and power of judicial review in mind, we will consider the question posed before us. The submission of the petitioners is that the question was objective in nature. Four options were given by the paper-setter. Three of them were incorrect and only one was correct. It was, therefore, expected of the students to give only one option, which is correct or the most appropriate (Clause 5.10). It was also submitted that a text book was prescribed by the University published by NCERT in the subject of Biology for 11th standard. The petitioners had studied the said prescribed book. As per the said book, correct answer of question No. 39 is antennae (i.e. option b). The petitioners had given the said answer and thus they were entitled to one mark. It was their further case that key answer accepted by the University as receptors (i.e. option V) was wrong and not as per the text book prescribed by the University, published by NCERT. Since the petitioners, who have exercised right option (antennae), they ought to have been given one mark treating the option as correct. By not doing so, the University has caused serious prejudice to them and the action of the University deserves to be interfered with. 22. Since the petitioners, who have exercised right option (antennae), they ought to have been given one mark treating the option as correct. By not doing so, the University has caused serious prejudice to them and the action of the University deserves to be interfered with. 22. The point for our consideration is whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, it would be open to this Court to exercise powers under Article 226 of the Constitution and interfere with the action of the respondent-University, if it is held to be illegal or unlawful. 23. In this connection, it would be profitable to refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University, through Vice Chancellor and others v. Samir Gupta and others, (1983) 4 SCC 309 and Abhijit Sen and others v. State of U.P. and others, (1984) 2 SCC 319. 24. In Samir Gupta, almost an identical question arose before the Court. It was also a case of admission to medical course. There also an objective type test was prescribed wherein multiple choice was given to the students. Moreover, in that case too, a key answer supplied by the paper-setter was said to be wrong. Some of the students who gave correct answer to the question and, therefore, were entitled to full marks assigned to the said question were not awarded marks for that question on the ground that the answer given by them was not as per key answer of the University. The action was challenged by aggrieved students by filing petitions in the High Court of Allahabad under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitions were allowed by the High Court and a direction was issued to the authorities to give the students marks allotted to the said question and to give admission to the petitioners on that basis. The order passed by the High Court was challenged by the University before the Supreme Court. It was strenuously contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court had committed an error of law and exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the action of the University. The order was, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 25. The order passed by the High Court was challenged by the University before the Supreme Court. It was strenuously contended before the Supreme Court that the High Court had committed an error of law and exceeded its jurisdiction in interfering with the action of the University. The order was, therefore, liable to be quashed and set aside. 25. The Supreme Court considered the question in detail and observed that a some what awkward question had arisen before the court that if a paper-setter commits an error while indicating an incorrect answer to the question, whether the students who answer the question correctly would suffer and whether he was bound to answer the question as per the key answer supplied by paper-setter to the University even if it is incorrect. The Court then went on to consider the pattern of examination, which according to the Court was comparatively a recent phenomenon, known as, multiple choice objective type test. It was also observed that the question raised before the Court was of great importance to the student community. 26. According to the University, no challenge could be allowed as to correctness of a key answer unless on the face of it such answer was wrong. Upholding the argument, the Court 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 27. 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.” (Emphasis supplied) 27. The Court, however, did not accept the argument of the University on merits by observing as under: "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." The Court then proceeded to state : "Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to the medical colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those text-books. Those text-books support the case of the students fully. 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." (Emphasis supplied) 28. The Court also indicated that with a view to avoid recurrence of such cases, it was expected of the State Government to take appropriate steps. Stated the Supreme Court: "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. If the State can succeed in overcoming 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. If the State can succeed in overcoming 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." (Emphasis supplied) 29. It was also aruged that it was not open to the High Court to direct the University to give additional marks or to give admission to the petitioners at a particular course. The said contention was also negatived by the Apex Court holding that if on the basis of the conclusion arrived at by the Court, the action of the University was found to be illegal, unlawful or contrary to law, it was open to the High Court to issue an appropriate direction including a direction to admit the petitioners to a course, to which they were otherwise entitled but for illegal deprivation of legitimate marks by the University. 30. In Abhijit Sen, the principle laid down in Samir Gupta was reiterated. 30. In Abhijit Sen, the principle laid down in Samir Gupta was reiterated. It was stated: "Suffice it to say that this Court has expressed therein a clear and categorical view that if the key answer (i.e. the answer which the paper-setter has supplied to the University as the correct answer and which has been fed into the computer) is shown to be demonstrably wrong, that is to say, such as no reasonable body of men well vested in the particular subject would regard it as correct and if the answer given by a student is correct if regard be had to acknowledged text-books or books which the student was expected to read and consult before appearing for the test it would be unfair to penalise the student for not giving an answer which accords with the key-answer that is to say with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. The contentions raised in the instant appeals will have to be considered within these parameters indicated in the judgment." 31. The relief was accordingly granted in favour of the students. 32. A converse case arose before this Court in Miss Ruchika Verma and others v. H.P. University and others, 2000(1) Shim. LC 324. In that case, it was averred by the petitioners that the key answer at the Common Entrance Test for admission to MBBS/BDS courses was incorrect. But there key answer was based on the materials from the book published by NCERT prescribed for qualifying course for study in Himachal Pradesh. The petitioners, relying on other books asserted that the answer given by them was correct and not the key answer, prepared by the University on the basis of text-book published by NCERT. They were, therefore, entitled to marks for the answers given by them. 33. Referring to Paritosh Bhupeshkwnar Sheth, Samir Gupta and Abhijit Sen, negativing the contention of the petitioners and dismissing the petitions, D. Raju, C.J. (as his Lordship then was) observed : "We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned Counsel appearing on either side, in this regard. The entrance examination is meant for students, who have undergone 10+2 studies and, therefore, it should be of that standard and the expected equipment in respect of the proficiency in the subject, which the students undergoing such studies were able, to have on the subjects concerned. The entrance examination is meant for students, who have undergone 10+2 studies and, therefore, it should be of that standard and the expected equipment in respect of the proficiency in the subject, which the students undergoing such studies were able, to have on the subjects concerned. It is in this connection, the judgments of their Lordships of the Apex Court and the observations contained therein need emphasis. Apparently, on account of this only specific instructions appear to have been given to the paper-setters with sufficient indication about the standard of questions and books to be used by the paper-setters. As noticed earlier, the answers should be such as are found in the standard and acknowledged text-books, which are commonly read by students and those prescribed for the qualifying examinations. The key answer should be, as enjoined by their Lordships, presumed to be correct unless it is proved to be incorrect and that it should not be held to be incorrect by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation and it must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong to the extent that no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard the same as correct. From the manner of exercise the learned Counsel for the petitioners have undertaken in this case before us, we are constrained to place on record that the attempt appears to be either to demonstrate that the information or the contents in the prescribed and approved text-books itself are not correct or that it is not the complete one by relying upon some books published by foreign authors or some specialists which we may even point out would be beyond the reach of even a graduate or post-graduate student. The further attempt appears to be to show that the questions admit of more than one correct answer and that they also suffer the vice of ambiguity, besides being tricky and doubtful. The further attempt appears to be to show that the questions admit of more than one correct answer and that they also suffer the vice of ambiguity, besides being tricky and doubtful. In order to substantiate such a stand, the learned Counsel, in our view, virtually attempted before us, what has been held to be not permissible even by their Lordships of the Apex Court, "that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation." It is also relevant and pertinent to point out that their Lordships of the Apex Court, in condemning the key answers in those cases placed reliance mainly on the prescribed Text-books which the students were normally and ordinarily expected to read", 34. It was also observed by the Division Bench that power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution is not in the nature of appellate jurisdiction or of review as if the petition is an appeal, particularly when, the decisions have been taken on academic matters by experts. The High Court cannot substitute its opinion for the opinion of the expert body except in the rarest of rare cases or for exceptional reasons. In the opinion of the Court, the case in hand did not require any interference since key answers were prepared on the basis of prescribed text-books. The Court stated : "As indicated in the course of our judgment, no exception could be taken to any of the key answers fixed by the University, since those answers appear to have been fixed only with reference to materials available in the books published by the National Counsel of Educational Research and Training (NCERT), which are prescribed for the 10+2 courses of study in the Himachal Pradesh. Since the examinations are held for the purpose of according admissions in the Himachal Pradesh and the University has made it clear to the paper-setters as to the books to which they should have recourse in preparing the questions and key-answers, the authorities cannot be found fault with for adopting the prescribed Text-books, which as indicated earlier, are normally and ordinarily expected to be read by a large number of students in the various institutions under the control of the Board of Secondary Education within the State. Therefore, we have no hesitation to reject the challenge made by the petitioners to the key-answers fixed by the concerned authorities of the University who have conducted the entrance examination.” (Emphasis supplied) 35. From the above decisions, in our judgment, the legal position is fairly well settled. The jurisdiction of this Court while exercising powers under Article 226 of the Constitution is not appellate in nature. It is, therefore, not open to us to substitute our opinion for the opinion of authorities, particularly, in academic field where the questions are to be decided by Experts. At the same time, however, when such questions are objective in nature and they are to be resolved on the basis of text books prescribed by the University for the said purpose, it is enjoined on the University to adhere to those text books and students giving answers on the basis of such text-books cannot be deprived of marks by referring to key answers prepared from other sources. It has been so held in Samir Gupta, reiterated in Abhijit Sen and followed by this Court in Miss Ruchika Verma. 36. In the instant case, it is not disputed that as per the text book prescribed by the University and published by NCERT, correct answer is antennae (option b) and not receptors (option c). The petitioners have given answer on the basis of the said book. This Court in Miss Ruchika Verma has held that when key answers were prepared from a book prescribed by NCERT, the University was right in doing so and it was not open to the petitioners to justify options given by them by relying on other books. 37. Applying the ratio of two decisions of the Supreme Court in Samir Gupta and Abhijit Sen and in Miss Ruchika Verma of this Court, in cur considered opinion, the argument advanced on behalf of the petitioners deserves to be accepted by holding that when they have given option b antennae as per the text-book prescribed by the University and published by NCERT, they are entitled to one mark for such answer and it was incumbent on the University to give one mark to each of the petitioners. 38. For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly allowed. 38. For the foregoing reasons, the petition deserves to be allowed and is, accordingly allowed. The respondent-University is directed to give one mark to each of the petitioners for giving correct answer of question No. 39 in the subject of Biology and to prepare merit-list of Combined Pre-Medical Entrance Test afresh. It is also directed that if on the basis of such merit-list, the petitioners are entitled to get admission to MBBS/BDS course, the University will take appropriate consequential action in accordance with law. The petition is, accordingly, allowed to the extent indicated above. In the facts and circumstances of the case, however, there will be no order as to costs. CMP No, 1032 of 2000 In view of disposal of the writ petition, the present application is also disposed of. Petition allowed.