JUDGMENT P. K. BALASUBRAMANYAN, CJ. — These writ petitions are filed by candidates who had appeared in the Joint Entrance Examination (Engineering and Medical) 2002 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘JEE 2002’). Pursuant to an advertisement in that behalf, the petitioners applied and were issued admit cards for writing the examination. The examination is a common entrance examination for admission into the courses in medicine and in engineering. The papers in physics and chemistry were common to the candidates. Whereas the aspiring medicos took a paper in Biology in the afternoon session, the engineering aspirants took the mathematics paper in the morning. There were 120 questions in physics and chemistry together and 120 questions in Biology and 120 questions in Mathematics. Thus, a candidate had to answer 240 questions. Four marks were awarded for each question making the total 960 marks. For a wrong answer, one mark was to be deducted. 2. A calendar of salient events starting with the date of commencement of the sale of application forms and ending with the probable date of counselling after announcement of the results were set out in the calendar. In addition, the Rules for Entrance Examination and the Procedure/Valuation Methodology were also indicated. The valuation was to be computerised and the candi¬dates were given clear instructions how to mark their answer and how not to mark their answer. Since the questions were objective type questions with four suggested answers, it was for the candi¬date to choose the answer which according to him/her was the correct one. The candidates were instructed that they had to use HB pencils to darken the appropriate circle showing the correct answer. Other meticulous instructions about the marking of the chosen answer were given. It was also indicated that the valua¬tion would be by using the Optical Scanner. There was also a clause indicating that the Joint Entrance Examination was held only for preparing a relative merit list. There would be no award of class and no provision for verification of marks secured by a candi¬date. According to the petitioners, they appeared in the examina¬tion , they marked the answers as stipulated and as instructed and that they have been awarded marks in the Entrance Examination, and they have also been ranked in the merit list. Some of them have been called for counselling though not for medicine, but for other courses. According to the petitioners, they appeared in the examina¬tion , they marked the answers as stipulated and as instructed and that they have been awarded marks in the Entrance Examination, and they have also been ranked in the merit list. Some of them have been called for counselling though not for medicine, but for other courses. Their complaint is that the correct answers had been published in the news-papers and going by those answers and on an assessment of their performance in the Entrance Examina¬tion, they would have or should have obtained more marks than what have been awarded. According to them, the marking of the answers with HB pencil as opposed to the use of ball-point pen directed to be used in other States and Universities while hold¬ing the Entrance Examinations and in Orissa itself during the previous Entrance Examination, has led to deserving candidates being deprived of the full marks or the expected marks. There should, therefore, be a scrutiny of the answer papers by this Court either by itself or through Experts appointed by this Court and it had to be verified whether the method adopted was proper or not. The typical prayer in the original petition is to quash the Results declared on 20.6.2002, and to direct the opposite parties - the Chairman, Examination Sub-Committee and the Chairman of Admission, to produce the question papers given to the peti¬tioners along with the relevant answer scripts and after getting the same verified by Experts, to direct the opposite parties to issue a fresh ranked list of the petitioners on the basis of the new marks the petitioners would be assigned and give them admis¬sion either in the Engineering course or in the medical course as opted by the candidates. 3. We may straightaway point out that though there is a challenge to the whole method of valuation of the answer papers and what is sought for is practically a revaluation of the answer papers, the petitioners have not impleaded the State of Orissa as a party. None of the higher rank holders in the merit list al¬ready prepared and who have been offered admission have also been impleaded, at least in a representative capacity. It may be noted that according to the petitioner some 30,000 candidates had taken the entrance examination. 4. Learned counsel who led the argument on behalf of the petitioners raised only one aspect. It may be noted that according to the petitioner some 30,000 candidates had taken the entrance examination. 4. Learned counsel who led the argument on behalf of the petitioners raised only one aspect. He recognised that the peti¬tioners have written the examination in the manner proposed by the concerned authority and on the basis of the stipulations contained in the instructions issued to them, and accepted by them and hence, there was difficulty in their way in challenging the process of selection adopted. But, the learned counsel con¬tended that there was possibility of arbitrariness entering into the reckoning since the method adopted keeps away human interven¬tion. In addition to suggesting that mischief can be made while feeding the data or scanning the results, it was submitted that a provision for rechecking by human intervention was necessary and this Court has to look into the question whether there has occurred any such mishap in this examination since the possibili¬ty of wrong marking existed. In Karnataka, in the prospectus of Procedure, it was provided that a candidate had the right to scrutinise his answer papers and to have access to information regarding the valuation process and there should have been such a provision in this examination as well. The counsel submitted that the reason for directing the answers to be marked by “HB pencil” was obscure since the safe method was to mark the answers with a ball-point pen. Learned counsel submitted that he was not chal¬lenging the efficiency of the Optical Scanner, but since there was possibility of error and the marked correct answers being missed or omitted while awarding marks, it was necessary for this Court to give an opportunity to the candidates to have their answer papers scrutinised or for a revaluation or a rechecking of the marks leading possibly to award of higher marks to those candidates who had sought a revaluation or a scrutiny. 5. There is no plea of mala fides or any specific impro¬priety committed by those concerned or any specific error pointed out, as having occurred, during the process of valuation. The contentions sought to be raised are of general nature and what is sought to be projected is the possibility of computerised valua¬tion being mistaken. 5. There is no plea of mala fides or any specific impro¬priety committed by those concerned or any specific error pointed out, as having occurred, during the process of valuation. The contentions sought to be raised are of general nature and what is sought to be projected is the possibility of computerised valua¬tion being mistaken. Except the sense of distrust of the compute¬rised valuation, no specific event or fact is pleaded in these writ petitions showing that there has been any irregularity or impropriety in the process of valuation. Of course, it may be difficult for a candidate to set out a specific challenge, but even then, the Court cannot interfere unless it is convinced that intervention is a must or is at least warranted. 6. The computers have come to stay. In fact, use of com¬puters has resulted to a good extent, in eliminating the human failings or charges of improper valuation by an examiner. The candidates had been given clear and specific instructions. It has not been demonstrated before us with reference to any scientific data that the marking of an answer by using an “HB pencil” is in any way defective or inferior to the answers being marked by a ball-point ink pen. The suggestion appears to be that a candi¬date may mark an answer, which according to him, is correct by clearly shading the concerned circle, but shading it slightly lightly and there was the risk of the scanner machine missing it or not reckoning with it. But, we see that very clear and specif¬ic directions have been issued to the candidates who took the examination as to how they should mark the answer. There is no case for the candidates that they could not understand the impli¬cations of the instructions or the directions. It is on the basis of those instructions that the candidates took the examination. There is no plea that they had any difficulty in marking the answers in the manner suggested. As noted, except suggesting that there might have occurred some mistakes in the computer valua¬tion, nothing specific or more has been put forward justifying our intervention in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. There is no plea that they had any difficulty in marking the answers in the manner suggested. As noted, except suggesting that there might have occurred some mistakes in the computer valua¬tion, nothing specific or more has been put forward justifying our intervention in exercise of our jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Unless specific allegations with supporting material are forthcoming which could create a clear doubt in the mind of the Court about any possible error or omission in the matter of valuation of answers, it will not be possible or proper for the Court to interfere with the whole examination process thereby throwing out of gear the entire scheme and process of admission to the professional courses. We must remember that the process has to be completed at the earli¬est, lest adequate time for completion of the semesters become unavailable during the academic year. In this situation, we are satisfied that we would not be justified in interfering with the results already announced, based only on the materials placed before us. We are also satisfied that a case for quashing the ranked list has not been made out by the petitioners. Hence, we decline to interfere. 7. It is true, we have found this year that no ground is made out for re-opening the examination process. But, we have no difficulty in appreciating the anxiety of the students before us. Most of them would have put in hard work in preparation of cross¬ing the hurdle to achieve their ambition of joining a profession¬al course and taking up a professional career. We think that they are entitled to be reassured and must be reassured that the proc¬ess of examination from beginning to end, is tamper-proof, error-free, fair and even-handed. For making it as error-free and fair as possible, we think that the State and the Authorities vested with the conduct of the examination should take certain steps. We think that they are entitled to be reassured and must be reassured that the proc¬ess of examination from beginning to end, is tamper-proof, error-free, fair and even-handed. For making it as error-free and fair as possible, we think that the State and the Authorities vested with the conduct of the examination should take certain steps. We, therefore, direct them to - (1) Ensure that only dedicated qualified academicians are associated with the examination process at every stage; (2) Ensure that education peddlers and those who are out to commercial exploitation of education like those running tutori¬als, parallel colleges, coaching centres, tuition centres and the like, are in no way associated with the examination process at any stage, like while setting the question papers or determining the correct answers or valuation; (3) Ensure that persons with the required expertise, charac¬ter and dedication to duty alone are entrusted with the computer operation in all its stages; and (4) Consider whether in the circumstances, a student feeling aggrieved by the result should not be given an opportunity to scrutinise his answer paper with reference to the accepted cor¬rect answers published and whether a Complaint Cell or Grievance Committee be not constituted to look into specific complaints made after verification by the candidates ? We thus dismiss these writ petitions, but with the above directions to be implemented in all ensuing future Entrance Examinations. A. S. NAIDU, J. I agree. Petitions dismissed, direction given.