S. N. KUMAR, J. ( 1 ) IN this batch of writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the correctness of the answer key of Post-graduate Entrance Test-2002, "medicine Version M4" and to assign ranking on the basis of the corrected answers, or, in the alternative, a direction to the respondent-University to appoint an expert committee to look into the key answers provided by the University in respect of the challenged questions. ( 2 ) ALL the petitioners have successfully passed the MBBS examination and are eligible for appearing the Post-graduate Entrance Test-2002 held by the respondent-University. The respondent-University issued the calendar of events for the P. G. Entrance Test-2002, Medicine version M4 (for short, hereinafter referred to as "p. G. Entrance Test" ). As all the petitioners were found eligible to take the examination, they were issued with identity cards by allotting registration numbers and they were permitted to appear in the examination. ( 3 ) THE P. G. Entrance Test conducted by the University is an objective test consisting of 200 questions, each question having four optional answers. The candidates are required to select the correct answer out of four answers provided in the question book. If the answer is correct the student would get one mark, if the answer is incorrect, he would lose 1/4th of the mark. After the examination, the respondent-University has provided key answers to the questions on the website on 13-8-2002. ( 4 ) THESE petitioners when they saw the answers on the website, they were shocked to find that the answers provided to question Nos. 3, 11, 12, 16, 19, 23, 75, 97, 126, 127, 129, 133, 139 and some other questions were all wrong. Therefore, some of the petitioners challenged the said key answers by paying a sum of Rs. 1,000/ -. Thereafter the University, after considering their objections, accepted the mistake in its key answers in respect of question Nos. 3, 6, 19, 23, 97, 127 and 139 and allotted full marks. However, they have not accepted the mistake with reference to other questions. The petitioners appeared to have made one more representation pointing out to the University even the key answers to other questions are also wrong. However, the said representation was not even acknowledged hy the University and no action is taken. Therefore, they are constrained to file these writ petitions seeking the aforesaid reliefs. The petitioners appeared to have made one more representation pointing out to the University even the key answers to other questions are also wrong. However, the said representation was not even acknowledged hy the University and no action is taken. Therefore, they are constrained to file these writ petitions seeking the aforesaid reliefs. ( 5 ) IN the body of the writ petitions the petitioners have set out the question and the key answers given, and have also pointed out with reference to several textbooks how the key answers published are wrong and what is the correct answer according to them. ( 6 ) THE respondent-University has filed the counter. They have stated that the question paper is set by the experts in the respective are as from outside the State. Multiple choice questions have been given to the candidates with four alternative answers. The candidates have to choose the most appropriate alternative for situation given in the question. After the completion of the examination on 13-8-2002, the key answer for all 200 questions in 8 versions as given by the paper setters were notified in the internet. This procedure was adopted with a view to help the candidates for self-assessment of their performance as they were permitted to carry their copy of Optical Mark Reader (OMR) answer sheet and also to bring in maximum transparency in the entire system. The candidates were also allowed to make representations if any about the key answers on or before 23-8-2002. Several representations have been received by the University, wherein the correctness of the key answers to the questions has been questioned. All the representations including that of the petitioners were reviewed by the subject experts representing different branches of medicine and same was approved by the P. G. Entrance Test Committee. As a result, for some questions changes were made in the key answers as suggested by the experts. Thus, the entire process of review has been done very meticulously by the experts, going through the representations and the accompanying references furnished by the candidates. The experts also took care and referred to relevant textbooks and reference books before suggesting any change in the key answers. Accordingly, the modified key has been made on the basis on which the scanned data is computed and results have been declared. The experts also took care and referred to relevant textbooks and reference books before suggesting any change in the key answers. Accordingly, the modified key has been made on the basis on which the scanned data is computed and results have been declared. ( 7 ) THEY further contend that this Court cannot sit in judgment on the question papers set and the key answers provided. This Court does not have any infrastructure to undertake this exercise. This Court in various judgments has held that this Court cannot exercise the power to scrutinize academic activities as it is the function of the University and therefore it should decline to interfere with such matters and such judgment is upheld by the Division Bench of this Court and therefore they contend that the relief sought for by the petitioners cannot be granted. As such, they have prayed for dismissal of these writ petitions. ( 8 ) LEARNED Counsels appearing for the petitioners have contended that when once the University accepted the fact that the key answers notified by them in the internet in respect of some questions was wrong and when they have corrected the same and the benefit of the same has been given to all the students, it only demonstrates that those key answers are not infallible. When the petitioners have demonstrated that even in respect of those answers the challenge of which is not accepted by the University by a bare reading of several textbooks by experts, the key answers given are wrong, a case for further review has been made out and therefore the petitioners are entitled to the relief sought for. In support of their contention, they have relied on a judgment of the Su- preme Court in the case of Kanpur University, through Vice-Chancellor and Others v Samir Gupta and Others, and they have also relied on several judgments of this Court, where during the pendency of the writ petitions the University voluntarily undertook for a second review of the key answers and therefore they submit that in view of the settled law, a case for second review of the key answers is made out by them. ( 9 ) PER contra, the learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-University submits that when once the rules have been made providing for publication of the correct key answers after the examination, and challenge to the said key answers by the students can be considered by an expert committee, results are announced on the basis of the answers approved by the expert committee after the challenge, there is no question of further review of such key answers is permissible in law. Secondly, he contends that there are several textbooks on the subject and merely because the petitioners support their contentions on few books does not mean that it is the correct answer. There are other several books taking a contrary view and therefore ultimately it is for the experts to decide what is the correct answer. Once the experts on the basis of the textbooks on the subject come to the conclusion that what is the correct answer, it is not open to this Court to sit in judgment on the question of such matter and over again to look into the textbooks relied on by the petitioners and find out the correctness or otherwise of the decision of the expert committee as this Court lacks the requisite expertise. In a similar situation when already this Court has taken the view that this Court cannot sit in judgment over the decision of the expert committee and has rejected the earlier writ petitions, which order has been confirmed in writ appeal, these writ petitions cannot be entertained and the direction sought for in the writ petitions cannot be granted. ( 10 ) IN view of the aforesaid facts and the rival contentions, before I record my decision on merits, it is necessary to look into the salient features of the Post-graduate Entrance Test-2002, which is conducted in accordance with the ordinances governing conduct of Entrance Test for admission to Post-graduate Degree and Diploma (Medical and Dental) courses, 2002, which have been framed under the Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences Act, 1994. ( 11 ) IN pursuance of the aforesaid ordinances, a brochure containing the details of the P. G. Entrance Test-2002 for admission to P. G. for medical/dental has been issued. ( 11 ) IN pursuance of the aforesaid ordinances, a brochure containing the details of the P. G. Entrance Test-2002 for admission to P. G. for medical/dental has been issued. It clearly sets out the eligibility criteria, how to secure an application form, where to secure it, how to submit the application form, how to fill up the application form and what are the certificates to be enclosed along with the said application form, reservation in favour of certain categories. It also deals with the conduct of entrance Test. It makes it clear that the syllabus content will, ordinarily, be equal to the syllabus prescribed for M. B. B. S. /b. D. S. under the mci/dci Regulations or Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences ordinance. The distribution of marks, subject-wise, for the Entrance test is given in Appendix V to the said application form. The Entrance test will be conducted in English. There will be one question paper (booklet) of three hours duration consisting of 200 questions. There will be eight versions of the question paper booklet and therefore serial numbers of the questions differ from version to version. Questions will be of multiple choice type, each having one best response out of four plausible alternatives. Answer sheet is of "optical Mark Reader" (OMR) type with a carbonless copy. OMR sheet is required to be marked as per the instructions on it using a black or blue ball point pen. Copy of the omr sheet is allowed to be taken by the candidate. Evaluation is by optical scanning of the OMR sheet. Each question carries one mark. Correct answer will be awarded one mark. For each wrong answer quarter (1/4) mark will be deducted. If more than one alternative is marked for a question, one mark will be deducted. ( 12 ) ANSWERS of test questions will be notified on the website of the university within two days from the date of Entrance Test. Since the candidates will have the copy of OMR sheet, self-assessment is possible by comparing with the key answers notified on the website. Notified key answers may be challenged within 10 days from the date of notification of the key answers. Merit lists are prepared for Medical candidates firstly, on the basis of the marks obtained in Entrance Test. Since the candidates will have the copy of OMR sheet, self-assessment is possible by comparing with the key answers notified on the website. Notified key answers may be challenged within 10 days from the date of notification of the key answers. Merit lists are prepared for Medical candidates firstly, on the basis of the marks obtained in Entrance Test. Secondly, the merit list is prepared on the basis of the individual cumulative performance at the first, second and third MBBS examination (50% weightage) and the marks obtained in the Entrance Test (50% weigh- tage ). The minimum percentage of combined weightage marks for admission will be 50% for all the candidates. Thereafter, a provision has been made for spot selection of seats on the basis of merit. ( 13 ) THEREFORE, the above procedure makes it very clear that the University which conducts the examination has taken into consideration the possibility of key answers given by them on the website/internet after the examination may be incorrect. Therefore, care has been taken to make a provision for challenging those key answers within ten days from the date of notification on the website. In fact, when the candidates are provided a copy of the OMR sheet, on the basis of the answers published on the website/internet, self-assessment is possible by comparing with the key answers notified on the website. Therefore, it is clear that conduct of examination by the University is fair, transparent, and a provision has been made for rectification of mistakes in the key answers. ( 14 ) AS is clear from the statement of objections filed by the University, when representations were made challenging the key answers, they would be reviewed by the subject experts representing different branches of medicine and same has to be approved by the P. G. Entrance test Committee. The experts would take care and refer to the relevant textbooks and reference books before suggesting any change in the key answers. It is only on the basis of the modified key answers, this scanned data is computed and the results are declared, so that all students who have taken the examination are treated equally and given the benefit of those modified answers, including to even the students who have not challenged the said key answers. It is only on the basis of the modified key answers, this scanned data is computed and the results are declared, so that all students who have taken the examination are treated equally and given the benefit of those modified answers, including to even the students who have not challenged the said key answers. Therefore, there is absolutely no discrimination in awarding the marks to all the students who have taken the examination on the basis of the modified key answers. ( 15 ) IN the aforesaid judgment referred to by the learned Counsels for the petitioners, the Supreme Court was dealing with a case where there was no provision for challenging the answers though the scheme of the said examination provided for publication of the correct answers after the examination. Therefore, in view of the undisputed fact that there was no provision for challenging the key answers in the scheme of examination and when the expert of the University himself opined that some of the key answers were wrong coupled with the fact that sufficient material was placed by the students before the High Court to demonstrate that the said key answers were wrong coupled with the fact that most of the disputes are in respect of translation of English version of science to Hindi, the Supreme Court upheld the judgment of the High court. None of those factors are present in the present case. As such, those judgments have no application to the facts of this case. ( 16 ) IN the aforesaid judgment, it was also held that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong. 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, i. e. , it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. If there is a case of doubt, he would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalize 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. If there is a case of doubt, he would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalize 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. 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'. Thai 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 exami- nation, 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. ( 17 ) IN fact, one of the learned Judges of this Court while dealing with a similar situation in the case of Dr. S. S. Suresh Chandra and Others v rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences , has held that these are all purely academic matters which the Court is incompetent to examine and deal with. It cannot Decide as to what would be the correct answer to a scientific question or whether the key answer given are correct or whether there is yet another correct answer or whether valuation of the paper is correct or whether the question paper set is correct. These are all matters beyond the purview of this Court and this Court should restrain itself from taking note of these allegations and venturing into any investigation. This Court cannot sit in judgment on the question papers set and the key answers provided. This Court does not have any infrastructure to undertake this exercise, power to scrutinize academic activities as it is the function of the University and this Court should desist from interfering with such matters. ( 18 ) ANOTHER learned Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. This Court does not have any infrastructure to undertake this exercise, power to scrutinize academic activities as it is the function of the University and this Court should desist from interfering with such matters. ( 18 ) ANOTHER learned Judge of this Court in the case of Dr. Girish nagarale v Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences and Another, has held that all the questions in regard to which the petitioner has found fault with are the model answers relate to highly technical subject in the field of dentistry. While it is possible that model answers provided to the said questions may be erroneous, it is also possible that even experts may differ as regards the correctness of the answer to a given question. Whether or not, model answer to a question is the most appropriate is therefore a matter which can be left to the experts in the field who are better equipped in terms of their knowledge and grasp over the subject. That exercise has been undertaken by the University in fairness to the candidates who had pointed out the errors. Since the questions contained in the question booklet spread over 22 different subjects in dentistry, the correctness of the answers were reviewed by as many as 44 experts in those disciplines. Not only that, a further review was undertaken by the University during the pendency of the petition. While doing so, the University added one more expert on the subject to make a group of three experts for review of each of six questions in regard to which the petitioner had raised objections. Judicial review of the action of the University or the view taken by the experts in matters relating to evaluation of answer scripts has its own limitations. The absence with the Court of the necessary expertise to determine the issue authoritatively and the fact that even experts may differ in regard to the correctness of an answer to a question necessarily makes judicial intervention a difficult task. Interference with the opinion of the experts has, therefore, to be slow and in exceptional circumstances only. ( 19 ) THEREFORE, it becomes clear that in academic matters this Court should be very slow to interfere with the decision arrived at by the experts in the field. Interference with the opinion of the experts has, therefore, to be slow and in exceptional circumstances only. ( 19 ) THEREFORE, it becomes clear that in academic matters this Court should be very slow to interfere with the decision arrived at by the experts in the field. When question papers are set, key answers to the said questions are provided by experts from outside the University, absolutely no motives could be attributed to such experts. Err is human. Even teacher may commit mistakes. Therefore, taking note of this hard fact of life in the scheme of examination a provision is made for announcement of key answers on the website after the examination and a carbon copy of the answer script is provided to the students who have taken the examination to enable them to make self-assessment by comparing with key answers notified on the website. Fairness and transparency of the examination is beyond doubt. When a further provision is made for challenging the correctness of the answers notified on the website by giving a time often days from the date of notification of the key answers, a further safeguard to the interest of the students is in built and their interest is taken care of Thereafter, when the students challenge such key answers, a provision is made for review of such key answers by subject experts representing different branches of Medicine which has to be further approved by the P. G. Entrance Test Committee. All care is demonstrably taken to see that the students are not put to any injustice on account of a wrong key answer. If the challenge to the questions are accepted, then a modified key answer is published, and the results are declared on the basis of the modified key answers. Irrespec- tive of the fact whether a student has challenged the correctness of a key answer or not, the benefit of the corrected answer is given to all the students who took the examination. Thus, no one is discriminated in the process. It is thereafter the merit list is prepared. Merely because the students who had challenged some of the key answers are not happy with the modified key answers arrived at by an expert committee after referring to the relevant textbooks and reference books, it cannot be held that the key answers suggested by such students is the only correct answer. It is thereafter the merit list is prepared. Merely because the students who had challenged some of the key answers are not happy with the modified key answers arrived at by an expert committee after referring to the relevant textbooks and reference books, it cannot be held that the key answers suggested by such students is the only correct answer. Though to substantiate their contentions, they relay on some passages from textbooks, it is to be noted that those passages are also nothing but an opinion by one such expert only. No book or no one expert's opinion can/be said to be final. Experts are bound to differ. Therefore, when a committee of experts is constituted and after considering the challenge to the key answers, if that committee of experts after referring to relevant textbooks and reference books suggests what is the correct answer, it is not open to the students to again find fault with the said answer and contend that the answer suggested by the students alone is correct answer and that should be accepted and mark should be given on the basis of such answer. In all these matters at some stage there should be some finality. It is relevant to point out at this juncture that in the multiple choice objective type test, where four answers are given out of which the student has to select one answer, it is not as if the other three answers are patently and totally wrong. All the four answers in different circumstances could be correct answers. But what the student is expected to do is to select one best response out of the four plausible alternatives. Here the experts in the field may differ, and they are entitled to stick to their opinion. It is because of this complex nature, the question papers are not set by individual but a group of a committee of experts who after due deliberation having reached a broad consensus set the questions and select one best response out of the four plausible alternatives, as the correct answer. Thus, all care is taken to minimise the human error and see that no injustice is done to students. ( 20 ) AS long as the procedure adopted in evaluation of these answer scripts are not arbitrary, reasonable, consistent, then the system cannot be found fault with. Thus, all care is taken to minimise the human error and see that no injustice is done to students. ( 20 ) AS long as the procedure adopted in evaluation of these answer scripts are not arbitrary, reasonable, consistent, then the system cannot be found fault with. As long as all the students who took the examination are treated equally, then they cannot have any grievance whatsoever. It is settled law that in academic matter, the University's word is the last word. Court neither has the necessary expertise nor infrastructure to go into the correctness of such decision. This Court cannot sit in judgment over those findings and examine the material on record and arrive at its own conclusion as a Court of appeal. It is also not possible in such circumstances to go on appointing the committees after committees to go into the correctness of the decision of the committee. There won't be any end to this exercise. Therefore, a key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong. 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. If it is a case of doubt, unquestionably key answer is to be preferred. Only if it is beyond the realm of doubt, possibly judicial review is permissible. ( 21 ) IN the instant case, admittedly when some of the petitioners challenged the key answers notified on the website, the University considered their objections, upheld their objections,. corrected the answers and given the benefit of the corrected answers to the petitioners. However, the petitioners' grievance is that the University has not accepted their challenge to all the questions. Insofar as challenge to those questions which are not accepted by the University, they want to substantiate their contention by relying on several textbooks and then they want to point out that the answers suggested by them is the correct answer and not the key answer. Insofar as challenge to those questions which are not accepted by the University, they want to substantiate their contention by relying on several textbooks and then they want to point out that the answers suggested by them is the correct answer and not the key answer. It is needless to point out that the questions were of multiple choice type, if experts after careful consideration have set the question and have suggested a particular answer, it is not possible to accept the contention of the petitioners that the answer suggested by the experts is not the correct answer and that the answer suggested by them is the correct answer. It is within the domain of the expert to decide the correct answer. They may differ regarding which is the best response out of four alternatives and therefore it is for them to decide. After careful consideration of the challenge by the petitioners, after referring to relevant textbooks and reference books, if they again have come to the conclusion that the answer suggested by them is the correct answer and answer suggested by the students is not the correct answer, this Court cannot sit in judgment over the said expert body as an Appellate authority and undertake an exercise to find out which is the correct answer, as this Court has neither the expertise nor the infrastructure to do the same. ( 22 ) THEREFORE, in the light of the aforesaid discussion, I do not find any merit in any of these writ petitions. Accordingly, these writ petitions are dismissed. --- *** --- .