ORDER Huluvadi G. Ramesh, J : In these petitions, petitioners have assailed the conducting of examination i.e., PG - CET for Ayurveda in various colleges in the State contending that there are altogether thirty six faulty questions and as such there is possibility of petitioners losing a college of their choice in the State according to their priority and though they approached the respondent University to set right the discrepancies/ anomalies, no decision has been taken to award marks to the petitioners and University failed to step in to take corrective measures and in high handedness retorted to the petitioners. As such, they are before this Court seeking to quash the PG-CET for Ayurveda conducted on 10.6.2012 and re-do the same by considering the representation dated 21.6.2012 and award 11 marks for three questions which were not given to the petitioners and also issue a mandamus to hold a fresh PG CET for Ayurveda. Heard the Counsel representing the respective parties. Counsel for the respondent has relied upon the decision in the case of Guru Nanah Deu University Vs. Saumil Garg & Ors., (2005) 13 SCC 749 which is rendered in a similar situation i.e., with regard to some of the wrong questions framed for entrance test for Medical Colleges and the CBSE was appointed to examine their correctness. While answering the relevant queries, at paras 11-12 of the judgment, the Apex Court has observed thus: "What is paramount is the interest of the student community. Merit should not be a casualty. We feel that the interests of the 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. There is yet another problem, namely, that of seven questions are so vague that they are incapable of having a correct answer. The appellant University, in respect of those seven questions, has given the credit to all the students who had participated in the entrance test irrespective of whether someone had answered the questions or not. We do not think that that is the proper course to follow. It is wholly unjust to give marks to a student who did not even attempt to answer those questions. We do not think that that is the proper course to follow. It is wholly unjust to give marks to a student who did not even attempt to answer those questions. This course would mean that a student who did not answer say all the seven questions would still get 28 marks, each correct answer having four marks. The reasonable procedure to be followed, in our opinion, would be to give credit only to those who attempted the said questions or some of them. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we direct that for the students who attempted those questions or some of those questions, in so far as they are concerned, the said questions should not be treated to be part of the question paper...." Accordingly, the decision taken by the authority in the said case was revised and some solution was suggested. Both the Counsel for the petitioners and the respondents have agreed that a expert committee is constituted and also there is a provision made for challenging the questions framed as such, based on certain representation as per the expert's committee constituted by the University itself, after having examined, five of the questions were found incorrect in the entrance test question paper and the same were deleted and remaining questions have been taken into consideration for evaluating merit and preference. In this view of the matter, it is ruled out to allot or give marks/benefit to the wrong questions and those five questions would be totally deleted. The apprehension of the petitioners is, after deleting five questions if the revised rank list is prepared based on merit, then necessarily there will be alteration of their ranking as is announced in the Counselling held. The apprehension of the petitioners is, after deleting five questions if the revised rank list is prepared based on merit, then necessarily there will be alteration of their ranking as is announced in the Counselling held. However, in this context, to overcome certain confusion which are expressed by the petitioners, after deleting five questions as it has been done in a mechanised manner, the questions which were answered by the petitioners as well as other students who have taken the entrance examination will be subject to (revaluation as per the opinion expressed by the Expert Committee holding that except five questions, remaining questions are correct and since it is also submitted that two answers are nearer to the key answers given, the answer which is nearest will be considered as correct answer as such, bearing that in mind, it is for the respondent authority to suggest the key answers as per the opinion of the Expert Committee and subject the papers which are already valued for revaluation and prepare the merit list. If there is any alteration because of the change in merit, then necessarily those who are benefited or affected will be given a seat in the college based on their merit preference. With the above observations, petitions are disposed of. However, there is another Counselling to be held tomorrow (12.10.2012). This may be postponed and it may be held after the entire revaluation is done and merit list is prepared according to the suggestions made above.