JUDGMENT : Common Order: Since the core question involved in these writ petitions is with regard to release of Key to the entrance test conducted for admission to Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma Courses/M.D.S. Courses for the academic session 2008-2009, they are taken up together for decision. More precisely, W.P.Nos.7137 and 9104 of 2008 relate to the release of Key in respect of entrance test conducted for admission to MDS Course and whereas W.P.Nos.8324 and 7145 of 2008 relate to release of Key in respect of entrance test conducted for admission to Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma Courses. 2. The only difference with regard to the entrance test in respect of admissions to Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma Courses and M.D.S. Courses is number of multiple-choice questions. With regard to M.D.S. courses, four sets of question paper comprises 100 multiple choice questions carrying one mark each and whereas question paper for Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma Courses comprises 200 multiple choice questions carrying one mark each. 3. When all the writ petitions came up for admission on various dates, learned Standing Counsel for the Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada-2nd respondent received notice. 4. Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada-2nd respondent conducted entrance test for admission to Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma Courses/M.D.S. courses for the academic session 2008-2009, on 12.03.2008. Question paper for M.D.S. course comprises 100 multiple choice questions carrying one mark each and whereas question paper for Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma Course comprises 200 multiple choice questions carrying one mark each. The candidates were directed to mark the right choice on the O.M.R. Sheet. Entrance test results were declared on 19.03.2008. P.Madhusudhan and 16 others filed W.P.No.7145 of 2008 on 31.03.2008, and P.Kistadasu and 5 others filed W.P.No.8324 of 2008 on 15.04.2008 assailing the action of the 2nd respondent-University for not releasing the Key before publishing the result of entrance test in respect of admissions to Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma courses. Whereas, Dogiparthy P.Bhargavi and 12 others filed W.P.No.7137 of 2008 on 31.03.2008 and B.Krishnaveni filed W.P.No.9104 of 2008 on 23.04.2008 assailing the action of the 2nd respondent-University for not releasing the Key before releasing the result of the entrance test in respect of admissions to M.D.S. Courses. 5. It is suffice to refer the affidavit filed in support of writ petition in W.P.No.7137 of 2008. 5. It is suffice to refer the affidavit filed in support of writ petition in W.P.No.7137 of 2008. Dogiparthy P.Bhargavi has sworn to the writ affidavit. It is stated in the writ affidavit that more than 15 questions carry inaccurate answers or more than two answers. A request was made to the 2nd respondent-University to publish the Key enabling the candidates to tally the marks awarded to them vis-à-vis their performances and to have transparency in the process of selection with regard to the accurate answers. But the 2nd respondent-University did not accede to their request. The Government of Karnataka conducted Post Graduate Entrance Test for Medical and Dental, 2008-2009 i.e. Consortium of Medical, Engineering & Dental Colleges of Karnataka PGET-2008, wherein dates have been given for publication of the answer Keys, clarifications to the answer Keys and test scores. They have also published answer Keys. Even in the State of Andhra Pradesh, Key is being released before publication of results in respect of EAMCET. Not following such procedure in case of entrance test conducted for admission to Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma/M.D.S. Courses amounts to discrimination. Therefore, a prayer has been made to issue writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 2nd respondent-University in publishing results without releasing Key, entertaining objection and rectifying the errors in respects of Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma Courses/M.D.S. Courses Entrance Test for the academic session 2008-2009 as arbitrary and illegal. 6. Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada-2nd respondent filed counter-affidavit. Dr.T.Venugopala Rao, Registrar, Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada-2nd respondent, has sworn to the counter-affidavit. The averments of the counter-affidavit, in brief, are: The University for the preparation of the question paper, at the first instance obtains M.C.Qs. with answers from three different subject experts from National Level Institutions, who are all well versed with the subject and the pattern of questions for each subject. Then the questions are moderated by another set of subject experts. A person in the cadre of Professor will prepare the question paper by choosing the number of questions from each subject as per the Regulations confidentially. After completion of the Entrance Test, the questions will be sent to another set of subject experts for post verification. The answers of the paper setter will be compared with the answers of post verification answers. After completion of the Entrance Test, the questions will be sent to another set of subject experts for post verification. The answers of the paper setter will be compared with the answers of post verification answers. When the answers of the post verification do not tally with the answers of the paper setter, the questions will be referred to the third subject expert. In this processes, the University considers any representations received with regard to the questions or the answers before finalizing the Key. The University conducted the Entrance Test on 12.03.2008 as per the schedule. The University has received only one representation and considered the same before finalizing the Key. The University has not received any other representations complaining wrong questions or wrong answers to the questions. The University has not received any representation from the candidates seeking release of Key before publication of results of the entrance test. The University completed the valuation and published the results on 19.03.2008. It is further stated in the counter-affidavit that the petitioners never represented the University before result publication that the questions have got inaccurate answers or more than two answers. Number of Institutions at National Level such as AIIMS, New Delhi, P.G.I., Chandigarh, JIPMER, Pondicherry and Institutions at State level such as NIMS, Hyderabad, SVIMS, Tirupati are also conducting the entrance test for admission to P.G. Medical Courses, but none of these institutions adapt the procedure of releasing the Key of the entrance test. The admissions are being made based on the rules framed by the Government of Andhra Pradesh published in G.O.Ms.No.260, HM & FW (E2) Department, dated 10.07.1997. 7. The petitioner in W.P.No.9104 of 2008 filed reply affidavit. In the reply affidavit filed by B.Krishnaveni, who is the petitioner in W.P.No.9104 of 2008, it is stated that the procedure as detailed in para.3 of the counter-affidavit has not been followed and on the other hand the alleged in-house procedure is casual and perfunctory. 8. When these writ petitions listed under the caption for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal. 9. 8. When these writ petitions listed under the caption for admission, with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, they are taken up for final disposal. 9. Heard Dr.P.B.Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.7137, 7145 and 8324 of 2008; Sri D.V.Sitharam Murthy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner in W.P.No.9104 of 2008; learned Government Pleader for Medical, Health and Family Welfare appearing for the 1st respondent and Sri D.V.Nagarjuna Babu, learned Standing Counsel appearing for Dr.N.T.R. University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada-2nd respondent. 10. Dr. P.B. Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.7137, 7145 and 8324 of 2008 submits that release of provisional Key, receiving objections thereto and release of final Key after considering the objections constitute a transparency in the process of conducting the entrance test and non-observation of the same gives a way to many apprehensions in the minds of the candidates and there is every likelihood of the candidates who answered correctly not getting the legitimate ranking. In a way, he submits that the procedure adapted in respect of EAMCET is to be followed to have transparency in the process of evaluation of the papers and release of results. He would also contend that when there was no procedure of releasing the Key in respect of EAMCET, it was questioned before this Court and a Division Bench of this Court in Convenor, J.N.T.University, Hyderabad v. C.Swarnalatha 1996 (4) ALD 426 held that Key answers to the questions have to be published widely simultaneously along with the publication of the results and without the publication of the Key answers, the list of successful candidates shall not be published and no admission shall be undertaken without the simultaneous publication as directed. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in K. Nirisha v. Convenor, Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad 1999 (5) ALD 500 = 1999 (2) An.W.R. 238. 11. He also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in K. Nirisha v. Convenor, Nehru Technological University, Hyderabad 1999 (5) ALD 500 = 1999 (2) An.W.R. 238. 11. In Convenor, J.N.T.University, Hyderabad v. C.Swarnalatha’s case (1 supra), a division bench of this Court relied on the earlier decision of this Court in A.Swapna v. Convenor, EAMCET 1993 (2) ALT 352 , wherein it was held that the Key answers should be published along with the results so that immediate steps can be taken for rectification if any answer is clearly demonstrated to be wrong or any question is found to be ambiguous and far beyond the scope of the syllabi and if none of the choices in a question of multiple choice section of a paper is correct. 12. There cannot be any doubt with regard to the proposition of law laid down by this Court in the above referred decision. With regard to EAMCET the provisional Key answers are being released, objections are received and after releasing the final Key, results are being announced. Of course this procedure has been adapted by the Convenor, EAMCET, after repeated observations made by this Court in the decision referred above. As on this day, the prospectus of common entrance test (EAMCET) contained a procedure for release of provisional Key inviting objections and the release of final Key along with the results. Such a procedure is not contemplated in the prospectus for admission to P.G. Medical Degree and Diploma Courses/MDS Courses. 13. Learned Standing Counsel appearing for the 2nd respondent-University submits that sufficient safeguards have been taken by providing in-house mechanism with regard to accuracy of answers and therefore, release of provisional Key and inviting objections is redundant. A further submission has been made that with regard to evaluation, there cannot be any inaccuracy in view of the answer scripts being evaluated mechanically. Learned Standing Counsel took me to the Regulation No.8 of the Prospectus, which deals with the preparation of merit lists, and it reads as hereunder: “ 8.MERIT LISTS: 8.1. The committee for evaluation of answer scripts and preparation of merit list will be constituted by the University. The answer scripts will be valued mechanically and a common merit list of the candidates qualified on the basis of marks obtained in the Entrance Test shall be prepared subject to Rule – 8.2 and the following merit lists will be published. The committee for evaluation of answer scripts and preparation of merit list will be constituted by the University. The answer scripts will be valued mechanically and a common merit list of the candidates qualified on the basis of marks obtained in the Entrance Test shall be prepared subject to Rule – 8.2 and the following merit lists will be published. A) Statewide Open (General), Women, Disabled and In-service Merit Lists. B) Statewide SC/ST/BC-A/BC-B/BC-C/BC-D/BE-E, Women and In-service Merit Lists. Above the lists will be displayed on the Notice Boards of the University. 8.2. In case of equality of marks in this Entrance Test total percentage of marks in MBBS (excluding PPC and Non-medical subjects of 1st year integrated MBBS course) upto 2 decimal places shall be taken into consideration for fixing the relative merit of the candidates. If the Entrance Test marks and MBBS marks are equal, marks obtained by the candidates in the subject he/she opts for, shall be taken into consideration. Note: If the candidate fails to submit the marks from 1st to Final MBBS, the minimum passing marks shall be taken into consideration. 8.3. Any candidate who wishes to have re-totaling of marks, should apply IN PERSON to the Registrar, Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada within 5 days of announcement of the results by enclosing a fee of Rs.500/- by a crossed demand draft drawn in favour of Registrar, Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences, payable at Vijayawada.” 14. The question that calls for consideration is whether release of provisional Key inviting objections thereto is necessary in respect of test conducted for admission to P.G. Medical Degree and Diploma Courses/M.D.S. Courses? 15. Indisputably all the writ petitioners took entrance examination after going through the prospectus for admission to Post Graduate Medical Degree and Diploma Courses/M.D.S. Courses. The prospectus does not contain the procedure of releasing the Key. Instead the prospectus contained a specific regulation with regard to re-totaling of marks in the presence of the candidate. Regulation No.8 has already been extracted supra. The 2nd respondent-University has detailed the in-house mechanism provided for accuracy of the answers to the multiple choice questions. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-University and it is thus: “Each MCQ was given 4 answers and out of these only one will be the correct answer and the remaining 3 will be distracters. For better appreciation, I may refer relevant portion of the counter-affidavit filed by the 2nd respondent-University and it is thus: “Each MCQ was given 4 answers and out of these only one will be the correct answer and the remaining 3 will be distracters. These distracters resemble the answer but they are not the correct answers. The candidates were directed to choose the correct answer. The University, for the preparation of the question paper, at the first instance obtains MCQ with answers from 3 different subject experts from National Level Institutions who are well versed with the subject and the pattern of questions for each. Then the questions were moderated by another set of subject experts. A person in the cadre of Professor will prepare the question paper by choosing the number of questions from each subject as per the regulations confidentially. After completion of the Entrance Test, the questions will be sent to different set of Subject Experts for post verification. The answers of the paper setter will be compared with the answers of post verification answers. When the answers of the post verification do not tally with the answers of the paper setter, the questions will be referred to the third Subject Expert. In this processes the university considers any representations received with regard to the questions or the answers before finalizing the Key. The university conducted the Entrance Test on 12.3.2008 as per the schedule. The university has received only one representation and considered the representation before finalizing the Key. The university has not received any other representation with regard to wrong questions or with regard to the answers to the questions. The university has not received any representation from the candidates to publish the Key before publication of results of the test. The university after finalization of the Key, completed the valuation and released the results on 19.3.2008.” Though the petitioner in W.P.No.9104 of 2008 in the reply affidavit denied that the procedure enunciated in para.3 of the counter-affidavit is not followed, no material has been placed before me to substantiate her contention. Before releasing the result, the 2nd respondent-University followed the in-house mechanism and therefore, publication of Key in the given facts and circumstances amounts to only a rituality. Before releasing the result, the 2nd respondent-University followed the in-house mechanism and therefore, publication of Key in the given facts and circumstances amounts to only a rituality. The decisions referred by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relate to EAMCET, where there is no in-house procedure as is followed in the case of entrance test for admission into P.G. Medical Degree and Diploma Courses/M.D.S. Courses. Even otherwise, the petitioners having gone through the prospectus and knowing fully well that there is no provision of release of Key, participated in the entrance test and allowed the results to be declared. Now the counseling is over and seats have been allotted based on the ranks to the candidates. At this distance of time, I am of the view that no Mandamus could be given to the 2nd respondent-University to publish Key. 16. In view of the above discussion, I find that all the writ petitions are devoid of merits and they are accordingly, dismissed. No costs.