JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rakesh Tiwari, J.—Heard Counsel for the petitioner and Sri P.S. Baghel for the respondents. 2. The petitioner appeared in Combined Pre Medical Test (CPMT)-2007. He qualified in the examination with rank 946 and appeared in the first and second Counselling respectively. 3. Grievance of the petitioner is that by letter dated 21.9.2007, the respondent No. 4 had sent booklet No. 109309 and 522482 of paper Nos. I and II respectively. After going through and comparing the answers, it was revealed that answers of some questions have been given wrong and though the petitioner has marked the correct option but he has been deprived of the marks. 4. Contention of the Counsel for petitioner is that the petitioner has given reference of the books of some prominent writers which shows that the petitioner has given correct answers but marks have not been awarded to him for those answers treating them to be incorrect. 5. Further contention of the petitioner’s Counsel is that the respondent No. 4 has himself admitted that one mark is to be provided to the candidate in case of wrong question but the respondent by marking incorrect answers the option marked by the petitioner has become incorrect and as such the petitioner would have been granted marks for those questions in which he marked the correct option but the same has not been done. 6. At the time of admission, the Court has passed the following order on 9.10.2007 : “Learned Standing Counsel has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 1, Sri Umesh Vats has accepted notice on behalf of respondent Nos. 2 and 4 and Mahindra Pratap has accepted notice on behalf of respondent No. 3 and copy of the writ petition is served on Sri Budh Prakash who holds brief on behalf of said Counsel. Each one of the respondents is granted a month time to file counter-affidavit. List on 13.11.07. While filing counter-affidavit specific details shall be furnished as to whether contention of petitioner is correct or incorrect.” 7. In the counter-affidavit, averments made by the petitioner have been denied and it is stated that the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the answer Nos. List on 13.11.07. While filing counter-affidavit specific details shall be furnished as to whether contention of petitioner is correct or incorrect.” 7. In the counter-affidavit, averments made by the petitioner have been denied and it is stated that the petitioner is seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to correct the answer Nos. 19, 29, 44, 58 and 71 of Paper No. I and question No. 10 of Paper No. II of CPMT Examination 2007 and to award marks for the answers to these questions. Regarding this context, it is stated that Prof. K.P. Singh, the then Vice Chancellor and Chairman, CPMT 2007 Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur nominated subject experts on the panel of examiners for the finalisation of the answer to the subject-wise question of question booklets related to paper No. I and II of CPMT 2007 Examination under the provisions (Cha & Chha) of “General Information in Reference to CPMT 2007” specified at page 4 of the Information Brochure CPMT 2007 Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University Jaunpur as well as the provision specified in para 10-Ka of G.O. dated 1.2.2007, which is quoted hereunder : ^^;g lqfufpr dj fy;k tk; fd izui= ds izR;sd izu ds lgh mÙkj ds lacaèk esa dksbZ Hkze ;k nksgjs mÙkj dh voèkkj.kk dh laHkkouk u jgsA ijexksiuh;rk dks cuk;s j[kus dh iw.kZ O;oLFkk dh tkuh pkfg;sA isij yhdst dh dksbZ laHkkouk ugha gksuh pkfg;sA lEiw.kZ ijh{kk dh xksiuh;rk cuk;s j[kuk ohj cgknqj flag iwokZpy foofo|ky;] tkSuiqj dk nkf;Ro gksxkA lh0 ih0 ,e0 Vh0 vk;ksftr djus okyh laLFkk ds ijh{kd e.My }kjk lh0 ih0 ,e0 Vh0 izui=ksa ds fuèkkZfjr mÙkj vfUre :i ls ekU; gksaxsA** 8. It is further stated that the answers to the subject-wise questions of question booklets of Paper I and II of CPMT-2007 were deeply discussed and were ultimately moderated and finalized by the nominated subject experts in their meeting held on 25th & 26th of May, 2007 as under these provisions the moderated and finalized answers of both the question Paper I and II are finally acceptable and the above information regarding the finality of the answers were already specified in the Information Brochure in CPMT 2007. 9. 9. The Counsel for the respondent has vehemently urged that the Information Brochure CPMT 2007 have been strictly prepared under the guidelines given in the G.O. dated 1.2.2007 which has been appended by the petitioner as Annexure-1 to the writ petition; that carbonless copies of the answer sheet related to both the question papers were handed over to the candidates including the petitioner from their centres immediately after the examinations were over for maintaining transparency in the conduct of the aforesaid examination. The answers supplied to the petitioner after the examination, were as per moderated and finalized answers given in the form of answer keys on the basis of which entire evaluation work had been done and the result was displayed on the internet on 21.6.07. 10. In paragraph 10, 11 and 13 of the counter-affidavit, it has been stated that the allegations made by the petitioner regarding the wrong answers are denied as the questions of Paper I & II have been moderated and finalized by the subject experts nominated on the panel of examiners and agreed answers given by them are final and no other answer is acceptable. It is further stated that the petitioner has made vague allegations against respondent No. 4 that one mark is provided to the candidate whether wrong question has been attempted or not. It is further stated that the subject experts nominated on the panel of examiners made this provision only for two questions of paper II on account of this ambiguity. It is also stated that first question is of Chemistry at Serial Nos. 23, 7, 50 and 33 respectively in Set No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of question booklets likewise second question is of Physics at Sl. Nos. 89, 73, 56 and 100 respectively in Set No. 1, 2, 3 and 4 of the question booklets. Thus, it is obvious that only 2 questions on account of ambiguity have been treated as wrong questions by the subject-experts and in only those 2 questions, 1 mark each has been awarded. 11. It is lastly urged by the respondents Counsel that admission of a candidate does not depend upon his general merit but also depends upon his stage and category rank in the CPMT examinations. 12. 11. It is lastly urged by the respondents Counsel that admission of a candidate does not depend upon his general merit but also depends upon his stage and category rank in the CPMT examinations. 12. After hearing Counsel for the parties and going through the record, it is apparent that there was mistake in two questions only, for which mark have been awarded to all the candidates. Once panel of experts moderated and finalized the correct or key answer, no other answer can be taken as correct. If there is any ambiguity in the books or answers which the petitioner has read, he cannot be awarded marks. Non acceptance of key answers finalised by panel of experts would otherwise introduce an element of arbitrariness materially affecting the result of CPMT which has to be declared strictly in accordance with answers moderated and finalized by the subject experts. All candidates are judged by the same standard and the factor of arbitrariness is to be kept at bay. 13. In Writ Petition No. 16594 of 2008, Kanaklata Dwivedi v. State of U.P., also this aspect of the matter has been dealt with and the petitioner’s case is also covered by the said decision. 14. For the reasons stated above, this Court cannot sit in appeal over the answers provided by the panel of experts and cannot base upon the extracts of books provided by the petitioner. 15. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. ————