JUDGMENT Hon'ble BHANDARI, J.—In all these writ petitions, a common question has been raised pertaining to Rajasthan Pre-P.G. Medical/Dental Examination-2009 and looking to the urgency shown by the learned counsel for the petitioners and as agreed by the learned counsel for the respondent, the matter was heard finally. 2. The petitioners appeared in the Rajasthan Pre-P.G. Medical/Dental Examination-2009. In the question paper of this examination, one question was pertaining to the registration of death and it was asked whether it is to done within 5 days, 7 days, 14 days or 21 days. All the petitioners attempted that question and answered it to be 21 days. For ready reference, the question is quoted hereunder:- "Q. Registration of death is done with in (a) 5 days (b) 7 days (c) 14 days (d) 21 days" 3. After completion of the entrance examination, the respondents published the key answer book giving "(b) 7 days" to be correct answer of the aforesaid question. The petitioners immediately made a representation to the University giving out that as per the amendment made in the provisions in the year 2000 itself, now the registration of the death is done within 21 days and for that purpose, Rajasthan of Birth and Death Rules, 2000 (for short, `the Rules of 2000') was produced and Rule 5 of the aforesaid Rules is quoted hereunder:- "5. Form etc. for giving information of births and deaths- (1) The information required to be given to the Registrar under Section 8 or Section 9, as the case may be shall be in Form No. 1, 2 and 3 for the Registration of a birth, death and still birth respectively, hereinafter to be collectively called the reporting forms, information if given orally shall be entered by the Registrar in the appropriate reporting forms and the signature/thumb impression of the information obtained. (2) The information referred to in sub-rule (1) shall be given within twenty one days from the date of birth, deaths and still birth." 4. The respondents realizing their mistake made a reference of the aforesaid issue to a committee and the committee gave opinion that the correct answer of the aforesaid question is 21 days and accordingly recommendation was made. The respondent University instead of acting on the recommendation of the first committee, made a reference to another committee which would be hereinafter called as second committee. The respondent University instead of acting on the recommendation of the first committee, made a reference to another committee which would be hereinafter called as second committee. The second committee gave opinion that as per the Park's Text Book of Preventive & Social Medicine authored by K. Park 19th Edition 2007 at page 693 para 2, registration of death is done within 7 days and referring to the aforesaid book, an opinion was given that the Part's Text Book appears to be correct. The recommendation of the second committee has been quoted in the reply to the writ petition submitted by the University and for ready reference, the same is quoted hereunder also:- "That the Park's text book of Preventive & Social Medicine authored by the K. Park 19th Addition 2007 in page 693, para No. 2 narrates the time limit for registering the event of death is 7 days." "After reviewing the literature available the committee members are of the opinion that the time limit as given in park's text book appears to be correct that any event of death be registered within a period of seven days." The question came up for determination by this Court is as to whether the answer of the question is 21 days as otherwise provided under the Rules of 2000 or it should be reckoned pursuant to the Park's text book. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents though initially made an argument in reference to the recommendation of the second committee, but then agreed that answer is required to be judged as per statutory provisions existing and not as per the text book containing wrong provisions, thereby the recommendation of the first committee was indirectly approved. This seems to be a fair act of the learned counsel for the respondents and needs to be appreciated. It is now in the aforesaid background, the present matter is required to be decided. 5. Since it is not in dispute that as per the Rules of 2000, registration of death is done within 21 days, thus, as per aforesaid, the correct answer of the question is 21 days. It is now in the aforesaid background, the present matter is required to be decided. 5. Since it is not in dispute that as per the Rules of 2000, registration of death is done within 21 days, thus, as per aforesaid, the correct answer of the question is 21 days. Now the further issue remains is as to what relief can be given to the petitioners inasmuch as the respondents have not awarded any marks of the aforesaid question to the petitioners who had not only attempted the question, but given right answer, but at the same time, the candidates who attempted the question and gave wrong answer by marking category "(b) 7 days" were awarded marks. Looking to the fact that the answer is required to be judged as per existing statutory provisions, which are notified by the Government and not as per the text book of a private publisher, moreso when it contains non-existing provision of law. In view of the recommendation of the second committee, the outcome is that a candidate given correct answer is not getting marks and at the same time a candidate given wrong answer is otherwise benefited. Now when the matter is before the Court, at least the court cannot allow to perpetuate the illegality, which otherwise is committed by the University. In view of above, respondent University is under an obligation to declare the result afresh after treating answer of the question in reference to be 21 days. 6. It is necessary to make reference of two judgments of the Hon'ble Apex Court where almost similar facts came up for consideration. In the case of Guru Nanak Dev University vs. Saumil Garg & Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 749 , the Hon'ble Supreme Court issued similar direction as directed above. Para 5, 6 and 11 are relevant and quoted hereinunder:- "5. CBSE gave a report to the High Court opining that ten key answers out of the 21 referred were incorrect. The High Court, on consideration of the entire matter, by the impugned judgment, came to the conclusion that key answers in respect of all the 200 questions deserve to be re-examined. The High Court was, however, of the opinion that it is not necessary to cancel the entire entrance test. The High Court, on consideration of the entire matter, by the impugned judgment, came to the conclusion that key answers in respect of all the 200 questions deserve to be re-examined. The High Court was, however, of the opinion that it is not necessary to cancel the entire entrance test. None has seriously contended before us that the answer to the problem lies in cancellation of the entire entrance test for obvious reasons that cancellation at this stage would affect all the students who had appeared in the said test. The High Court has directed by the impugned judgment that all key answers shall be examined by any independent agency and the answers given by the students revaluated on the basis of a report as to correct key answers provided by the said agency. Accordingly, the Chairman, CBSE was requested to, on appointment of experts, examine the key answers. The further direction issued by the High Court is that the appellant University may also nominate one expert for each of the aforesaid four subjects to assist the experts nominated by the Chairman, CBSE. Likewise, the petitioners before the High Court have also been given liberty to nominate one expert in each subject to assist the experts nominated by the Chairman, CBSE. Further direction of the High Court is that in case of difference of opinion i.e. when at least three experts had no expressed the same opinion, the question itself shall be cancelled. The High Court has also directed that the revised/corrected answer key would be based on the majority view expressed in respect of each question. 6. The University is in appeal on grant of leave. We have also before us both sets of students- one, students who support the University in their challenge to the directions contained in the impugned judgment, and two, the students who support the impugned directions for re-examination of the Key answers in respect of all 200 questions. The High Court has also issued directions for appropriate action to be taken against those who are responsible for the entire confusion and the mess. The High Court has also issued directions for fixing responsibility on the paper-setters and those who have been vested with the responsibility to finalise the key answers and consequential steps to be taken. The said direction of the High Court does not call for any interference. The High Court has also issued directions for fixing responsibility on the paper-setters and those who have been vested with the responsibility to finalise the key answers and consequential steps to be taken. The said direction of the High Court does not call for any interference. Those who set the papers and those who finalise the key answers have to bear in mind that what is at stake is the career of the young students at the very threshold of their attempt to get entry into professional courses where there is cut-throat competition. The questions posed must have only one correct answer out of four options given. Likewise, there is responsibility on those who finalise the key answers. If none of the answers is correct, it becomes their duty to say that none of the answers is correct, so that if any remedial action is to be taken, it should be taken before the answers are valuated. It is evident that on both these aspects, there was serious lapse which resulted in litigation which is otherwise avoidable. 11. What is paramount is the interest of the student community. Merit should not be a casualty. We feel that the interests of students would be adequately safeguarded if we direct the appellant University to revaluate the answers of the aforesaid eight questions with reference to the key answers provided by CBSE and the University of Delhi which are same and not with reference to the key answers provided by the appellant University." 7. The another case is of Manish Ujwal & Ors. vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University & Ors. reported in (2005) 13 SCC 744 , wherein para 10 the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:- "10. The High Court has committed a serious illegality in coming to the conclusion that "it cannot be said with certainty that answers to the six questions given in the key answers were erroneous and incorrect." As already noticed, the key answers are palpably and demonstrably erroneous. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or intervenors or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. In that view of the matter, the student community, whether the appellants or intervenors or even those who did not approach the High Court or this Court, cannot be made to suffer on account of errors committed by the University. For the present, we say no more because there is nothing on record as to how this error crept up in giving the erroneous key answers and who was negligent. At the same time, however, it is necessary to note that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reason. We mention few of those; first and paramount reason being the welfare of the student as a wrong key answer can result in the merit being made a casualty. One can well understand the predicament of a young student at the threshold of his or her career if despite giving correct answer, the student suffers as a result of wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answer; the second reason is that the courts are slow in interfering in educational matters which, in turn, casts a higher responsibility on the University while preparing the key answers; and thirdly, in cases of doubt, the benefit goes in favour of the University and not in favour of the students. If this attitude of casual approach in providing key answers is adopted by the persons concerned, directions may have to be issued for taking appropriate action, including disciplinary action, against those responsible for wrong and demonstrably erroneous key answers, but we refrain from issuing such directions in the present case." 8. In this case, admissions are yet to be given, thus, situation of this case is similar to that of Guru Nanak Dev University (supra), hence, similar direction in this case is given. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, at this stage, made a prayer that looking to the controversy, a direction can now be given by the court to delete the question for making calculations or awarding marks. 9. Learned counsel for the respondent, at this stage, made a prayer that looking to the controversy, a direction can now be given by the court to delete the question for making calculations or awarding marks. The aforesaid prayer could have been accepted if a question is given incorrectly or a question is having 2 possible answers given in the options or a question is having no correct option in the answers, if position is so, then definitely such question can be deleted and direction can be given for non-grant of marks in regard to such question, but here is a question, which contains a correct answer and the question is not incorrectly put, thus, the prayer made by the learned counsel for the respondent cannot be accepted, rather it was asked as to on what basis such a direction can be given by the court when it is admitted by both the parties that correct answer to the question is 21 days as per the Rules of 2000. Further it is also settled law that principles of natural justice are required where a person is deprived from his rightful claim and not for them who claims their right based on illegality because a wrong does not create a right in favour of anyone to claim hearing more so when even hearing can not change the outcome as otherwise drawn. 10. Before parting with the case, it is necessary to make comment on the second committee as it is because of the recommendation of the second committee that whole litigation came before this Court, otherwise if the recommendation of the first committee would have been complied with by the University, the petitioners would not have been unnecessarily dragged to litigate against the University because the first committee made favourable recommendation for the petitioners. The second committee was expected to know the statutory provisions by referring to the Gazettee notification or referring to the Government books in that regard, but it is sorry state of affairs that they have relied on a book of private publisher knowing it well that it contains an incorrect answer. The second committee was expected to know the statutory provisions by referring to the Gazettee notification or referring to the Government books in that regard, but it is sorry state of affairs that they have relied on a book of private publisher knowing it well that it contains an incorrect answer. In view of above, it is necessary to observe that to avoid litigation, the University was expected to adhere to the recommendation of the first committee and in future, it is expected that they will not recommend any matter to a committee consisting of the members of the second committee who are not even careful and knowing about the consequences of their recommendation being totally incorrect and illegal. 11. In view of above, all these writ petitions are allowed. The respondents are directed to declare the result afresh by treating answer of the disputed question to be 21days and accordingly, the result may be revised and declared. The respondents may proceed with the counseling without further delay and maintaining the time schedule given by the Hon'ble Supreme Court.