Judgment ( 1. ) INVOKING the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India the petitioner has prayed for declaration of Rule 3. 9. 2 of M. P. Medical and Dental Graduate Entrance Rules, 2003 as ultra vires and further to award the marks for the right answers as stated by the petitioner. Quite apart from the above a prayer has been made to produce the relevant records of the petitioner relating to Pre-Medical Test Examination, 2003 and grant such reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. ( 2. ) IT is pertinent to state here that in the relief clause the prayer has been erroneously couched to strike down the Rule 3. 9. 2 but Mr. Jagdish Tiwari has fairly submitted that it should be 3. 9. 3. Accordingly we shall deal with the said Rule. ( 3. ) THE expose of facts is that the petitioner appeared in the Pre-Medical Test held in the year 2003 conducted by the Professional Examination Board. The petitioner was placed at serial No. 109 in the waiting list. The mark-sheet of the petitioner has been brought on record as Annexure P-1. It is urged in the petition that the petitioner has been awarded less marks because of the faulty and erroneous valuation. It is stated that the petitioner applied for revaluation of the marks in two subjects and endeavoured hard to satisfy the authority of the Examination Board to rectify the error but it was an exercise in futility. Many an averment has been made with regard to incorrect valuation and how answers get support from the text-books. Number of references have been made to the questions to justify the aforesaid stand. An example has been given that State of Karnataka supplies copy of questions and their answers to avoid any kind of fallacy in declaration of the result. As has been indicated hereinbefore apart from the criticism advanced with regard to the erroneous valuation Rule 9. 3 has been assailed on the Constitutional backdrop. ( 4. An example has been given that State of Karnataka supplies copy of questions and their answers to avoid any kind of fallacy in declaration of the result. As has been indicated hereinbefore apart from the criticism advanced with regard to the erroneous valuation Rule 9. 3 has been assailed on the Constitutional backdrop. ( 4. ) A return has been filed by the Professional Examination Board (hereinafter referred to as the Board) contending, inter alia that the valuation has been made according to the standard norms adopted by the Board for the purpose of valuation and in regard to the revaluation and in the case of the petitioner the same were scrupulously followed and there is no mistake either in the valuation or revaluation. The said respondent has pleaded that the petitioner obtained 246. 88 marks in Chemistry, 256. 70 marks in Botany and 230. 30 marks in Zoology and 240 marks in Physics out of 300 marks for each paper and thereby she secured total 976. 30 marks out of 1200. It is also putforth that marks of the petitioner were rechecked and found that she had attempted 98 questions out of 100 in Physics and 18 out of it were found wrong and 80 correct and accordingly she was awarded marks. Similar explanation has been given in respect of other papers which we need not deal with in detail. It is also putforth that examination was conducted by the Board as per Rules and no fault can be found with the same. ( 5. ) A return has been filed by the respondent No. 2, the State of Madhya Pradesh, contending, inter alia, that the Rule which has been assailed by the petitioner is absolutely constitutional and the assail by the petitioner is totally misconceived. A stand is taken in the return that the petitioner had obtained 976. 30 out of total 1200 marks and her name appears at Sr. No. 109 in the waiting list and there are several candidates who have obtained more marks than the petitioner. It is also putforth that the persons who have received more marks their names also feature in the waiting list and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to admission. It is worthwhile to mention here that an application for amendment was filed by the petitioner that Rule 9. 3 is to be declared ultra vires. ( 6. It is also putforth that the persons who have received more marks their names also feature in the waiting list and, therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to admission. It is worthwhile to mention here that an application for amendment was filed by the petitioner that Rule 9. 3 is to be declared ultra vires. ( 6. ) WE have heard Mr. Jagdish Tiwari, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mrs. Shobha Menon, learned Counsel for the respondent No. 1 and Mr. R. S. Jha, Dy. A. G. for the respondent No. 2. It is submitted by Mr. Tiwari that there has been erroneous valuation of the answer scripts and such capricious valuation affects the career of the student of which the petitioner is a victim. Learned Counsel has propounded that if the whole career graph of the petitioner is appreciated in the proper perspective it would ring as a bell that the valuation of the answer papers is totally arbitrary and whimsical and as a consequence of which the petitioner has suffered immensely. Learned Counsel has submitted that Rule 9. 3 creates a peculiar situation inasmuch as by such incorporation of rule the quota meant for reserved candidates gets increased. It is urged by him that had the questions been properly valued the petitioner would have got more marks and would have got place in merit list and would have been eligible to take admission in the requisite course. It is canvassed by him that she would have got 12. 46% more marks which would have made the total to 988. 76 marks and in that case she would have featured in the merit list. ( 7. ) MRS. Shobha Menon, learned Counsel for respondent No. 1, has submitted that the examination as well as the valuation is conducted in absolutely justified manner and the attempt by the petitioner to guillotine the sanctity of the examination is without any foundation. ( 8. ) MR. R. S. Jha, learned Dy. A. G. has submitted that the Rule can not be regarded as unconstitutional as by incorporation of such a rule the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes people are put in an advantageous position as they have suffered immensely for centuries. ( 9. ) FIRST we shall take up the constitutional validity of Rule 9. 3 of the Rules. A. G. has submitted that the Rule can not be regarded as unconstitutional as by incorporation of such a rule the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes people are put in an advantageous position as they have suffered immensely for centuries. ( 9. ) FIRST we shall take up the constitutional validity of Rule 9. 3 of the Rules. We do not have to enter into much debate and scrutinize the validity of the Rules on the anvil of Articles 14 and 16 of the Constitution inasmuch as the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Mayank Jain v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2003 (4) M. P. H. T. 275, has held in Paragraphs 13 and 14 as under:- "13. Quite apart from the above, Rule 5. 0 clearly stipulates that there would be 50% per cent reservation for other categories and 50% seats shall fall to the category of general category. Rule 9. 3, as has been understood by us, is totally inconsistent with Rule 5. 0. The definitcness and certitude of Rule 5. 0 can not be throttled by incorporating Rule 9. 3. It is totally inconsistent and bring in an incurable dent in the essential feature of Rule 5. 0. In our considered opinion Rule 5. 0 is in consonance with the judgment of the Apex Court. As Rule 9. 3 runs counter to the same, it can not be allowed to prevail. They do not harmoniously co-exist and the disharmony ensues unacceptabilily. 14. In view of our preceding analysis, we irresistibly come to the conclusion that Rule 9. 3 is constitutionally invalid and the same can not be allowed to have any play. We declare it to be ultra vires. The counselling which is to take place shall be strictly in accordance with the Rule 5. 0. " In view of the aforesaid enunciation of law nothing remains to be done in this case with regard to the constitutional validity of Rule 9. 3 of the Rules. ( 10. ) AS far as second aspect is concerned it relates to improper valuation and non-granting of adequate marks. It is submitted by Mrs. Menon that the Professional Examination Board conducts the examination in the most fair and proper manner and hence, no fault can be found with it. 3 of the Rules. ( 10. ) AS far as second aspect is concerned it relates to improper valuation and non-granting of adequate marks. It is submitted by Mrs. Menon that the Professional Examination Board conducts the examination in the most fair and proper manner and hence, no fault can be found with it. The grievance of the petitioner that she is a meritorious student and she had performed extremely well in the examination but she had not been given adequate marks. Submission of Mr. Tiwari is that had the paper been properly valued there would have enhancement of 12. 45% of marks. Be that as it may, this Court can riot enter into the arena with regard to valuation. Be it noted that the learned Counsel for the petitioner has endeavoured hard to impress us that the answers given by the petitioners are absolutely correct if certain text books are scrutinized. We may hasten to state here that in fact some text books were produced before us. However, we may unhesitatingly express our inability to adjudicate the matter entering into that area to find that the answers given by the students were correct or not. It is in the sphere of expert academicians. The Professional Examination Board has been constituted for the said purpose. When the Professional Examination Board has conducted the examination and answers have been valued by qualified academicians and experts it would not be the duty of the Court to find out the correctness of the answers. In our considered opinion, that never can be the duty of the Court. Accordingly, we do not accede to the submission of Mr. Tiwari in that regard. ( 11. ) AS Rule 9. 3 had already been declared ultra vires by this Court in the case of Mayank Jain (supra) the petitioner should have been conferred the benefit as the said judgment was rendered on 10-9-2003. That apart, no other relief can be granted to the petitioner on the basis of erroneous valuation despite the vehement submissions made by Mr. Tiwari in the spectrum. ( 12. ) CONSEQUENTLY, the writ petition is allowed in part. There shall be no order as to costs. Writ Petition partly allowed.