JUDGMENT : J.B. Pardiwala, J. Leave to amend, learned advocate Mr.G.M.Joshi shall join the State of Gujarat through the Director, Indian System of Medicine & Homeopathy, Gandhinagar as respondent no.2. Notice to the newly added respondent. Learned AGP Ms. Krina Calla waives service of notice on behalf of respondent no.2-State. 2. In this writ petition preferred by a student under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the following reliefs have been prayed:- (A) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent institute to correct the result of the petitioner by accepting the Oxalic Acid as correct answer and be further pleased to direct the respondent to prepare a fresh merit list accordingly. (B) During the admission, pendency and final hearing of the petition, be pleased to restrain the respondent institute, its servants, agents and officers from conducting the counselling on the basis of the present merit list. (C) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to pass such other and further relief as are deemed fit in the interest of justice. (D) This Hon'ble Court may be pleased to award the cost of this petition. 3. Facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this petition can be summarized as under:- 4. Petitioner is a student. Petitioner has passed his B.A.M.S. Degree Exam from Chhatrapati Shahuji Maharaj University at Kanpur, Uttar Pardesh in the year 2009-10 and has completed his internship in July 2011. It is his case that he is qualified to apply for admission to the post graduate courses of Vachaspati/Dhanwantari (M.D./M.S.) conducted by respondent university. It appears that the respondent- Institute issued on-line advertisement declaring conduct of Joint Post Graduate Entrance Examination for admission to M.D. (Ayurveda)/M.S.(Ayurveda) (Ayurvedic Vachaspati/Dhanwantari) at National Institute of Ayurveda (NIA), Jaipur, I.P.G.T. and R.A., Jamnagar and Government Akhandananda Ayurveda College, Ahmedabad for the courses commencing from 2011-2012. According to the petitioner, it is a centralized admission process for admission to the three years' P.G. Course of Ayurvedic Vachaspati-M.D./M.S. (Ayurveda) at respondent Institute at Jamnagar, the post graduate Centre at Ayurveda and National Institute of Ayurveda at Jaipur. 5. Petitioner appeared in the written test, which came to be conducted on Jaipur Centre. 6. According to the petitioner, it is a centralized admission process for admission to the three years' P.G. Course of Ayurvedic Vachaspati-M.D./M.S. (Ayurveda) at respondent Institute at Jamnagar, the post graduate Centre at Ayurveda and National Institute of Ayurveda at Jaipur. 5. Petitioner appeared in the written test, which came to be conducted on Jaipur Centre. 6. It is the case of the petitioner that the examination in which he appeared, consisted of 80 MCQ (Multiple Choice Questions). In the said exam, one of the question was as under :- Question: Gastric Lavage is done in the poisoning by; (A) Sulphuric Acid, (B) Carbolic Acid, (C) Hydrochloric Acid, (D) Oxalic Acid. 7. Petitioner answered option-(d)-Oxalic Acid as the best possible answer. 8. It is the case on behalf of the petitioner that, if there was any confusion or any query in respect of the question, as per the rules, it was to be raised within one hour of completion of the examination. As there was no confusion or any query about the question, petitioner did not raise the same. The answer papers were examined on 4th and 5th July 2011. On 9th July 2011, provisional merit list was published, wherein the petitioner secured 63 marks and was placed at rank 51. Petitioner found that in the answer sheet published on the inter-net, the answer to question relating to Gastric Lavage was (B) Carbolic Acid and not (D) Oxalic Acid as answered by the petitioner. 9. It is his case that both the answers, namely, Carbolic Acid and Oxalic Acid are correct answers and therefore, he inquired with the respondent-Institute regarding the same. It is his case that the petitioner was asked to furnish material in support of his claim that both the answers, namely, Carbolic Acid and Oxalic Acid would be the correct answers. It is his case that he brought to the notice of the respondent-Institute relevant extracts from the text book "Medical Jurisprudence" by Modi and another from the book "Medical Jurisprudence" by Parikh. 10. However, respondent-Institute maintained their stand that the best possible answer would be Carbolic Acid and not Oxalic Acid. 11. It is his case that he brought to the notice of the respondent-Institute relevant extracts from the text book "Medical Jurisprudence" by Modi and another from the book "Medical Jurisprudence" by Parikh. 10. However, respondent-Institute maintained their stand that the best possible answer would be Carbolic Acid and not Oxalic Acid. 11. In this background, this petition has been preferred praying for a writ of mandamus or a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction to the respondent-Institute to correct the result of the petitioner by accepting Oxalic Acid as the correct answer and prepare a fresh merit list accordingly. 12. We have heard learned counsel Mr. Gautam Joshi appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel Mr. Siraj Gori for the respondent-Institute. 13. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the action of the respondent-university treating the petitioner's answer as wrong is patently illegal, contrary to law and deserves to be quashed and set aside. 14. He would submit that, when it was brought to the notice of the respondent-Institute that both the answers are correct, it was the duty of the respondent-Institute to correct the result of the petitioner and ought to have given the benefit of giving correct answer to the petitioner. 15. He would submit that on the basis of the result which the institute ought to have changed accepting the answer attempted by the petitioner as correct answer, then the petitioner would have been placed somewhere between Sr. No.33 and 37 in the order of merit list and not at Sr. No. No.51. He would submit that though the presumption is that the key answer is presumed to be correct, when the petitioner had demonstrated with the help of the text book that both the answers were correct, then it was obligatory on the part of the respondent-Institute to correct the result, as 1.25 marks would put the petitioner twenty places high in the merit list. 16. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Siraj Gori appearing for the respondent-Institute submitted that the petition is thoroughly misconceived in law and facts. He would submit that the High Court cannot take upon itself task of examiner or selection board and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof. 16. Per contra, learned advocate Mr. Siraj Gori appearing for the respondent-Institute submitted that the petition is thoroughly misconceived in law and facts. He would submit that the High Court cannot take upon itself task of examiner or selection board and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in question papers and evaluation thereof. He would submit that as per the instructions, the candidates were asked to choose the best possible answer and darken the correct answer A or B or C or D in the circle corresponding to that question in the OMR sheet with blue/black ball point pen only. 17. He would submit that the best possible answer to the question "Gastric Lavage is done in the poisoning by;" was selected on the basis of the following points. (i) In case of Hydrochloric acid, Sulphuric acid and Oxalic Acid poisonings; the preferable mode of treatment is neutralization of poisoning by administering suitable demulcents. In case of Oxalic acid; gastric lavage with calcium gluconate OR other purgatives have been mentioned after administering demulcents. It indicates that, gastric lavage to be followed after administration of demulcents, and hence gastric lavage will not be first line choice of treatment in oxalic acid poisoning. [Modi, Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, 23ed, page 59]. (ii) In case of carbolic acid poisoning; attempts will fail to induce vomiting on account of the local anaesthetic action of phenols and stomach should be washed thoroughly by passing stomach tube with plenty of luke warm water. [Modi, Medical Jurisprudence & Technology, 23ed, page 64]. (iii) Based on this; Option (B) Carbolic acid has been selected as the best possible option (as per Number 3 of General instructions) for the question. 18. He would submit that this Court, in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, may not go into these issues as they may be left for the experts in the field to be considered appropriately. He submitted that the petition deserves to be rejected and no relief can be granted in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr., reported in (2010) 6 SC 759. He submitted that the petition deserves to be rejected and no relief can be granted in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 19. He has relied upon the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur & Anr., reported in (2010) 6 SC 759. He has also relied upon the decision of the Division Bench of this High Court in the case of Shivam Rajiv Shah & Ors. v. Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Board, rendered in Special Civil Application No.6222 of 2011 with Special Civil Application No.6728 of 2011. He has also relied upon the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of Rashid Suhail Siddiqui & Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh & Anr., reported in 1994(0) MPLJ 731 . 20. We have given our anxious thoughts and consideration to all the relevant aspects of the matter. We have tried our best to consider the problem as it relates to a student, who claims that both the answers can be said to be correct answers and if the answer which the petitioner attempted is not declared to be the correct answer, then grave prejudice would be caused to the petitioner. It is true that the issue is very complex and vexed. This Court has no expertise in the field and the subject of Ayurveda. Keeping this in mind, we had directed learned AGP Ms.Krina Calla to seek assistance of an expert on the subject. 21. On 20th September 2011, when this matter was taken up for further hearing, learned AGP Ms. Krina Calla informed the Court that she had consulted Dr. Megha Jani, Director of Ayurvedic, Indian System of Medicine and Homeopothy and she is present in the Court. Accordingly, the matter was discussed in presence of Dr. Megha Jani, Director of Ayurvedic, Indian System of Medicine and Homeopathy. Dr.Megha Jani explained that the best possible answer to the question would be Carbolic Acid and not Oxalic Acid, as claimed by the petitioner. Dr. Jani substantiated her opinion on the ground that Carbolic Acid has anaesthetic quality and, therefore, in case of poisoning by carbolic acid, Gastric Lavage is the only treatment, whereas in other cases like poisoning by Sulphuric Acid, Hydrochloric Acid and Oxalic Acid, Gastric Lavage would be one of the treatments available, depending on the facts of each case. 22. Dr. Jani substantiated her opinion on the ground that Carbolic Acid has anaesthetic quality and, therefore, in case of poisoning by carbolic acid, Gastric Lavage is the only treatment, whereas in other cases like poisoning by Sulphuric Acid, Hydrochloric Acid and Oxalic Acid, Gastric Lavage would be one of the treatments available, depending on the facts of each case. 22. We also requested Dr. Jani to put her opinion expressed on paper in the form of an affidavit. The affidavit of Dr. Jani reads as under:- "I humbly say that I am not a party respondent in the matter but I am filing this affidavit pursuant to the directions of this Hon'ble Court passed on 20.09.2011. I humbly submit that I was directed to remain present in the Hon'ble Court (Coram: Hon'ble the Acting Chief Justice Mr. A.L. Dave & Hon'ble Justice Mr. J.B. Pardiwala) on 20.09.2011 to provide my personal opinion for the objection question which as under:- "Question: Gastric Lavage is done in the poisoning by; (A) Sulphuric Acid, (B) Carbolic Acid, (C) Hydrochloric Acid, (D) Oxalic Acid. For the above objective question, petitioner marked option No. "D" as a correct answer which is incorrect as per my opinion the best possible answer is option no. "B". I say and submit that My personal opinion for the above question is as under:- In case of Carbolic Acid poisoning ordinary emetics often fail to induce vomiting on account of the local anaesthetic action of phenol & washout the stomach thoroughly with plenty of lukewarm water by passing soft stomach tube. (REF: Modi's Meical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, 23rd edition, page no.64) So, Gastric Lavage is the only treatment of Carbolic Acid poisoning because of anaesthetic action of phenol. The copy of the extract of the ref referred is at Annexure-R I. Common treatment of inorganic acids like sulphuric acid, Hydrochloric Acid and Nitric Acid has been shown. With ingestion of strong acidshardly anything can be cone except to treat the shock with intravenous infusion and other supportive drug therapy. Gastric Lavage is contraindicated and so also emetics. If diluted Acid is ingested Dilution and neutralization can be tried. Calcium oxide, magnesium oxide and aluminium hydroxyl gel are agents to neutralize the acides. (REF: Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, 23rd edition, page no.45, 46) The copy of the extract of the ref referred is at Annexure RII. Gastric Lavage is contraindicated and so also emetics. If diluted Acid is ingested Dilution and neutralization can be tried. Calcium oxide, magnesium oxide and aluminium hydroxyl gel are agents to neutralize the acides. (REF: Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, 23rd edition, page no.45, 46) The copy of the extract of the ref referred is at Annexure RII. In case of Oxalic Acid poisoning chalk, calcined magnesia, eggshells, whiting, or plaster from a wall in a small quantity of water of milk with the view of neutralizing the acid and forming insoluble calcium oxalate may be given as a treatment. A saturated solution of lime is considered the best form of treatment. A gastric lavage should be done with one percent calcium gluconate solution. or other calcium salt and magnesium sulphate or castor oil as a purgative should be given (REF:Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology, 23rd edition, page no.59). The copy of the extract of the ref referred is at Annexure RIII. Thus Gastric Lavage is the only treatment of Carbolic Acid poisoning because of anaexthetic action of phenol." 23. Normally, courts will be slow to enter into a controversy which relates to examinations or tests held for admitting students to a specialised course. In the matter of examination, the University authorities must be trusted to hold the examinations in a fair and proper manner and interference by the court must be in the rarest of rare cases where the court is satisfied that the examination has been held in such a manner that it has resulted in arbitrary results so that the examination or the test held and the result declared has not resulted in the test of merit but has left much to the luck or chance of the candidates concerned. There are, however, exceptions to this rule and in exceptional circumstances courts have interfered to grant relief to meritorious candidates whose merit has been ignored because of improper setting of papers or incorrect answers declared in the key-answer. We may refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court of India on this question. There are, however, exceptions to this rule and in exceptional circumstances courts have interfered to grant relief to meritorious candidates whose merit has been ignored because of improper setting of papers or incorrect answers declared in the key-answer. We may refer to two decisions of the Supreme Court of India on this question. In the case reported in AIR 1983 SC 1230 Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, the question that arose for determination has been succinctly posed in the first part of the judgment of the learned Chief Justice as follows :- "If a paper setter commits an error while indicating the correct answer to a question set by Him, can the students who answered that question correctly be failed for the reason that though their answer is correct, it does not tally with the answer sent by the paper setter to the University as the correct answer." 24. While considering the question, it was observed that none can accuse the teacher of not knowing the correct answer to the question set by him. But occasionally not enough care is taken by the teachers to set questions which are free from ambiguity and to supply key answers which are correct beyond reasonable controversy. The court then considered the questions and the suggested answers and came to the conclusion that some of the answers given were demonstrably wrong. The Court observed that the key answer should be deemed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by a 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 man well versed in a particular subject would regard as correct. If there was a case of doubt, one would unquestionably prefer the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt it would be unfair to penalise 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. 25. Having found that some of the answers were demonstrably incorrect, the court considered the question as to what relief could be granted to the concerned candidates. 25. Having found that some of the answers were demonstrably incorrect, the court considered the question as to what relief could be granted to the concerned candidates. The High Court in that case had found that the respondents had not been awarded marks for the questions correctly answered by them though those answers were not in accordance with the answers given by the paper setter in the key answer which were demonstrated to be wrong. The Supreme Court directed that they should be granted those marks and the answer books be reassessed. It was not disputed in that case that if the answer books were reassessed the respondents would be entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course. In that view of the matter, the Supreme Court confirmed the directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of the particular question and the admission of the respondents to the M.B.B.S. course. 26. Similar situation arose in the case reported in AIR 1984 SC 1402 , Abhijit Sen v. State of U.P. This was also a case where the key answer to one of the questions was demonstrated to be wrong. 26. Similar situation arose in the case reported in AIR 1984 SC 1402 , Abhijit Sen v. State of U.P. This was also a case where the key answer to one of the questions was demonstrated to be wrong. The court, after noticing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University case (supra), observed as follows :- "Suffice it to say that this Court has expressed therein a clear and categorical view that if the ''key answer' (i.e. the answer which the paper-setter has supplied to the University as the correct answer and which has been fed into the computer) is shown to be demonstrably wrong, that is to say, such as no reasonable body of men well versed in the particular subject would regard it as correct and if the answer given by a student is correct if regard be had to acknowledged textbooks or books which the students were expected to read and consult before appearing for the test it would be unfair to penalise the student for not giving an answer which accords with the 'key-answer' that is to say with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong." After applying these principles, the court, while considering the question as to the relief to be granted, held that in a situation where both the answers, namely, one given by the candidate concerned as well as the key-answer supplied by the paper setter were found to be wrong with reference to the correct answer as determined by the court, no relief could be granted to the concerned candidate. Applying that principle one of the appellants before the Supreme Court was denied any relief because even though the answer in the key-answer supplied by the paper setter was found to be wrong, since the answer given by the appellant was also wrong. He, therefore, could not get any relief. Another student, however, who had given the correct answer which was not in accordance with the answer given in the key-answer, was granted relief because the key answer was found to be demonstrably in-correct. 27. He, therefore, could not get any relief. Another student, however, who had given the correct answer which was not in accordance with the answer given in the key-answer, was granted relief because the key answer was found to be demonstrably in-correct. 27. The principle that emerges from these two decisions is that, if the key answer is shown to be demonstrably wrong and the answer given by the student concerned is correct, the student concerned should not be penalised for not giving an answer which accords with the key-answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. 28. Having considered the matter in the interest of the student, more particularly, after taking the opinion of an expert, we are unable to persuade ourselves to accept the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner that option (B) and option (D) are correct answers or best possible answers. The experts on the subject have formulated an opinion that the best possible answer is option (B) i.e. Carbolic Acid. The petitioner in his own way may be right in submitting that Gastric Lavage i.e. Cleansing of stomach is done even in the case of Oxalic Acid, but since Gastric Lavage is the only treatment in the case of Carbolic Acid, Option (B) would be the best possible answer as required to be answered by the petitioner. The option as expressed by the experts on the subject cannot be substituted by this Court while exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution without any contrary opinion produced by the petitioners. This Court cannot sit over the opinion of the expert body without proper material. Hence, we are of the view that in the absence of conclusive and convincing material, it is not proper for this Court to go against the opinion expressed by the experts in the subject of Ayurveda. 29. The law in this regard is very well settled. It is now well-settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court that the findings of expert bodies in technical and scientific matters would not ordinarily be interfered with by courts in the exercise of their power under Article 226 of the Constitution or by the Supreme Court under Article 136 or 32 of the Constitution. It is now well-settled by various decisions of the Supreme Court that the findings of expert bodies in technical and scientific matters would not ordinarily be interfered with by courts in the exercise of their power under Article 226 of the Constitution or by the Supreme Court under Article 136 or 32 of the Constitution. For this proposition, reliance can be placed on the decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Systopic Laboratories (Pvt.) Ltd. v. Dr. Prem Gupta & Ors. (1994) Suppl.(1) SCC 160. Paragraphs 19 and 20 of this decision clearly give the answer on the question whether the findings of expert body in technical and scientific matters can be interfered with by the Court either under Article 226 or under Article 32 or 136 of the Constitution. 30. The role of statutory expert bodies on education and role of Courts are well defined by a simple rule. If it is a question of educational policy or an issue involving academic matter, the Court keep their hands off. If any provision of law has to be interpreted, applied or enforced, with reference to or connection with education, courts will step in. In Dr. J.P. Kulshreshta v. Chancellor, Allahabad University, reported in (1980) 3 SCC 418 , the Supreme Court observed: "Judges must not rush in where even educationists fear to tread.. While there is no absolute bar, it is a rule of procedure that courts should hesitate to dislodge decisions of academic bodies." 31. In Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 the Supreme Court has reiterated:- ".... the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-today working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them." 32. In a recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:- "It was not permission for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. In a recent pronouncement of the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (Supra), the Supreme Court has held as under:- "It was not permission for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court. 33. In the judgment of the Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, relied upon by the learned counsel for the respondent, the bench has held as under: "Before entering into the examination of the aforesaid questions and its correctness or otherwise, it would be proper to refer to the decision of the Supreme Court in Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta, AIR 1983 SC 1230 , wherein in similar circumstances, the Supreme Court stated that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that 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. It is also stated that if it is found that the question is wrong on the basis of text books and authorities, it would be penalising the students for not giving art answer which accords with the key answer which is demonstrated to be wrong. It has been further observed by the Supreme Court as under: "Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. It has been further observed by the Supreme Court as under: "Secondly, a system should be devised by the State Government for moderating the key answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions have to be translated into Hindi, it is not enough to appoint an expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must know the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of translation. Fourthly, 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.." Still more guidance can be obtained from Abhijit Sen v. State of U.P. Air 1984 SC 1402 , wherein it has been held that the answer given by the student should be found to be correct as determined by the Court. Merely because both the answers, namely, the one given by the student as well as the key-answer, were found to be wrong with reference to the correct answer as determined by the Court, the student cannot succeed Further, we may also refer to the decision of this Court, in Anjali Saxena v. Chairman, P.E.B. 1990 MPLJ 81, wherein it has been held where the key answer is correct and some other answer is also correct, the key answer should be accepted. For the said purpose, we may also refer to another decision of this Court in Ku Monica Singhai v. State of M.P.M.P. No. 2576 of 1992. 34. In the above referred judgment of the Division Bench of the Madhya Pradesh High Court, the Bench further held as under:- "Q. No.21- In which of the following is Vitamin B-1 found Answers : (A) egg (B) Milk (C) Meat (D) Yeast KEY ANSWER -D The argument of the petitioner in that all the answers ABCD contained Vitamin B. He has relied on General Studies Manual issued by U.P.S.C. Civil Services Preliminary Examinations, 1991. As against this, the learned Additional Advocate General has brought to our notice the statement contained in Year Book 1991, Competition Success Review Series at page 430, which reads:- "Vitamin B1 complex is found in yeast, green vegetables, cereals, etc...... The argument of the petitioners is that all the four answers would be correct. As against this, the learned Additional Advocate General has brought to our notice the statement contained in Year Book 1991, Competition Success Review Series at page 430, which reads:- "Vitamin B1 complex is found in yeast, green vegetables, cereals, etc...... The argument of the petitioners is that all the four answers would be correct. On the other hand, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that what is required to be seen is which is the nearest to the key answer, that is to day, yeast contains the highest proportion of Vitamin B1. Reliance is placed on judgment of this Court reported in Anjali v. Chairman, P.E.B., 1990 MPLJ Page 81, wherein it has been held that:- "It may be that the answer ticked as correct by them may not be wholly wrong or may even be closely correct to the key answer, but then, as we have pointed out above, unless the key answer is demonstrated to be 'wrong', the key answer should be accepted as the correct answer." In the said view of the matter, in the instant case, the key answer is taken to be correct and there is no infirmity in the same." 35. In the above view of the matter, the petitioner is not entitled to any relief from this Court in exercise of powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petition being devoid of any merits, it is accordingly rejected with no order as to costs. Notice is discharged. Petition rejected.