JUDGMENT: 1. FIVE individual citizens of our country have joined together as co-petitioners and have taken out the instant writ petition praying, inter alia, for the following reliefs: "a) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to cancel, rescind, set aside for hear and/or quash the entire examination of W.B.P.G.MAT examination 2010 and the result declared thereto and to further declare to conduct a fresh examination; b) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to declare that the examination of W.B.P.G.MAT 2010 is void ab initio and to cancel, set aside the results published thereto; c) Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents to forthwith conduct and conclude the enquiry (Annexure P-5) and to take such steps to hold fresh examination forthwith; d) Writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representations (Annexure P3 series) and to dispose of the same by passing a reasoned and speaking order after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to communicate the decision thereto; e) Writ in the nature of certiorari directing the respondents to produce, submit, authenticate all the relevant records, papers and/or documents before this Hon'ble Court so that conscionable justices may be rendered upon hearing all the parties." 2. IT has been stated in the writ petition that the writ petitioners are qualified doctors, having MBBS degree and aspire to upgrade their qualification by opting for either M.S. or M.D. Degree. For the said purpose, all of them appeared in West Bengal Post Graduate Medical Admission Test Examination, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as the said examination). IT has been specifically stated that the said examination was held on 24, January, 2010, which comprised of objective tests along with multiple choice questions. Mr. Ashis Sanyal, learned Advocate representing the writ petitioners submits that the writ petitioners were not aware of negative marking in the said examination in the absence of clear and unambiguous instructions in that respect from the West Bengal University of Health Sciences (hereinafter referred to as the said University which conducted the same examination. Mr. Sanyal has also contended that as soon as the result of the said examination was published on 13th February, 2010, the same was withdrawn for reasons best known to the University and was once again published on 14th February, 2010, upon revision. Mr. Sanyal has also contended that as soon as the result of the said examination was published on 13th February, 2010, the same was withdrawn for reasons best known to the University and was once again published on 14th February, 2010, upon revision. It is specifically contended by the learned Advocate for the writ petitioner that a notification issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, dated 15th February, 2010, would go show that there were serious irregularities and discrepancies in conducting of the said examination by the University authorities and the said notification is an attempt by the University to gloss over the matter by appointing three-member committee who are not independent authorities, but are part and parcel of the University. This committee has been formed by the Vice-Chancellor merely to cover the University's own laches. He further submits that in the facts and circumstances of the case, the counselling, which has already been started since yesterday, may be stayed by this Court pending final hearing of the writ petition. 3. ON the other hand, Mr. Balai Chandra Roy, learned Advocate General of the State of West Bengal, representing the West Bengal University of Health Sciences submits that it is not a fact that the writ petitioners, or for that matter the other examinees, were not aware of the negative marking. In this regard, he hands-up a copy of the 'Information Booklet' published by the West Bengal University of Health Sciences relating to Rules for Admission to Post-Graduate Degree and Diploma Courses in Modern Medicine, for the year 2010. The learned Advocate General invites this Court's attention to Rule 3.3 of the said Rules which reads as follows: "For each correct response, four (4) marks will be awarded. ONe (1) mark will be deducted for each wrong answer. More than a single response to any question will be treated as wrong response. No marks will be deducted for questions not attempted." 4. HE submits that the Information Booklet and the rules provided thereunder were available to all the examinees and they could not have filled-up the application forms without at first going through the Information Booklet carefully and acquainting themselves with the same. In this context, he also refers to Appendix-Ill of the Information Booklet which provides the guidelines for submission of an application by a candidate who wanted to appear in the said examination. In this context, he also refers to Appendix-Ill of the Information Booklet which provides the guidelines for submission of an application by a candidate who wanted to appear in the said examination. HE relies specifically on guideline No. 2, wherefrom it appears that the candidates will, first of all, have to visit the University website through internet and are thereafter required to go through the relevant Information Booklet carefully and acquaint themselves with all requirements regarding filling in the application form. This guideline also indicates the non-refundable amount that the candidates are required to pay in favour of the West Bengal University of HEalth Sciences. The Information Booklet handed-up by the learned Advocate General for the State of West Bengal, be kept on record. 5. SO far as the other contention of Mr. Sanyal is concerned with regard to irregularities and discrepancies of the University which resulted in withdrawal of the initial result and thereafter publishing of a revised result on the next date, he submits that initially the result of the said examination was posted on the internet at the University website, but immediately on detection of an error, the University authorities decided to withdraw the result from its website. This was done within a period of three hours, as soon as the error was detected. He further submits that this inadvertent error had crept in possibly due to erroneous date-entry after scanning the machine readable answer scripts, which was immediately looked into and rectified. He submits that in fact the very basis of the notification dated 15th February, 2010, issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University, was to enquire into the matter as to how such error/fault could have take place at all. According to the learned Advocate General, there is no question on the part of the University to hide anything or to try and gloss over the matter. He submits that the notification was issued bona fide, in order to ascertain the cause by conducting an enquiry so that such errors/faults are not repeated in future. He also draws this Court's attention to the time schedule for post-graduate and super speciality course admissions which has been determined by the Supreme Court of India in the judgment rendered in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. He also draws this Court's attention to the time schedule for post-graduate and super speciality course admissions which has been determined by the Supreme Court of India in the judgment rendered in the case of Mridul Dhar (Minor) and Anr. vs. Union of India and Ors., reported in- 2005(2) SCC 65 and submits that under the said time schedule, the last date for admission of students to post-graduate courses under the University is 31st May, 2010. He submits that the counselling session has already started since yesterday and in the absence of any mala fide motive on the part of the University, the writ petition ought to be dismissed by this Court. 6. AFTER considering the submissions made by the learned Counsel for the parties and upon perusing the instant application and the documents annexed thereto and also taking into consideration what has been stated in the Information Booklet, a copy of which has been handed-up by the learned Advocate General of Government of West Bengal, it appears to this Court beyond any shadow of doubt that the issue of negative marking, as sought to be raised by the writ petitioners, is purely an afterthought. Not even a scrap of paper has been annexed to the instant writ petition indicting complaint made before the University authorities by any of the writ petitioners, before submission of their respective application forms for the purpose of appearing in the said examination, stating therein that they had no access to the Information Booklet which was required to be gone through carefully by each one of the candidates prior to filling up their application forms. The complaints which are annexed to the instant writ application are curiously made after the writ petitioners sat for the said examination. It is patently clear from the Information Booklet, relevant portions whereof has been quoted hereinabove, that there was specific provision for negative marking which the University had already disclosed in the said Booklet. So far as with lrawal of the initial publication of the result from the website is concerned, even a bare glance at the notification dated 15th February, 2010, issued by the Vice-Chancellor of the University would reveal that after scanning of the machine readable answer scripts (called OMR sheets) and publication of result, it was detected that answers to D-series were not properly matched with the answer key of D-series. The notification also states that as soon as the fault was detected, the result was withheld and a revised result was hoisted in the website. The marks obtained by each candidate and their old rank as well as the new rank were placed in the wehsite. A committee was formed by the Vice-Chancellor consisting of (1) Dean, WBUHS (Chairman), (2) Director, IPGMER, (Convenor and (3) Registrar WPHS to enquire into the matter and place a report within 15 days. The Vice-Chancellor also gave opportunity to any person related to the matter to send their suggestions/opinion to the Dean, WBUHS, within 19th February, 2010. 7. HAVING noticed the above contents of said notification dated 15th February, 2010, in my view, the conduct of the University, which has admitted its own error, is above board and cannot be faulted. More importantly, by forming a committee, the Vice-Chancellor of the University has taken adequate care to enquire into the matter, in order to ensure that such error/fault is not repeated. 8. IN paragraph 2 of the instant writ petition, it has been stated by the petitioners that they are citizens of INdia having their permanent abode as per address furnished in the cause title and having locus standi to move in the instant writ petition in their joint capacity, being aggrieved by a common cause of action and thereby praying for common reliefs. In my view, however, in the absence of any jural relationship, inter se the petitioners, they could not have approached the Court by filing a joint writ petition citing common cause of action, just because they happened to appear in the same examination. In this regard, this Court, following a judgment of the Supreme Court rendered in the case of Mota Singh and Ors. vs. State of Haryana and Ors. reported in 1980 (Supp) SCC 600, recently delivered a judgment on 23rd March, 2010 in W.P. No.1007 (W) of 2010 (Mrinal Kanti Das and Ors. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.), which is wholly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In that judgment this Court held, inter alia, that in the absence of any jural relationship inter se the petitioners, they were not entitled to join in one writ petition. 9. vs. State of West Bengal and Ors.), which is wholly applicable in the facts and circumstances of the instant case. In that judgment this Court held, inter alia, that in the absence of any jural relationship inter se the petitioners, they were not entitled to join in one writ petition. 9. FOR the reasons stated above, I have no hesitation in holding that the writ petition is without any merit and warrants summary dismissal and is hereby dismissed. 10. URGENT photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned Advocates for the parties.