1. The petitioner was an Open Merit candidate in the 2013 Common Entrance Test for admission to Medical, Engineering and other allied courses conducted by the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations (hereafter, for short, referred to as, the BOPEE). She appeared in the aforesaid Common Entrance Test (for short, CET) in terms of Form no. 621629 under Roll no. 629049 as a candidate for admission to Medical courses - opting for the three required subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The BOPEE notified the result of the CET vide Notification no. 32-BOPEE of 2013 dated 05.08.2013. Annexure-I appended to the aforesaid Notification contained the names of short listed candidates for counseling, who were likely to be recommended for provisional admission, if found otherwise eligible, to MBBS, BDS, BUMS, BAMS, Physiotherapy and Diploma in Dental Hygiene Session 2013 on the basis of their merit secured in CET 2013; whereas Annexure-II appended thereto comprised of the list of short listed candidates for counseling, who were likely to be recommended for provisional admission, if found otherwise eligible, to B. E. / B. Tech courses. The Annexure-I itself comprised two lists, the first one containing the names of those of the candidates who made the grade for admission to Government run Medical Institutions and the second list contained the names of the candidates who have not made such grade and, as such, could be considered for admission to private institutions etc. 2. The petitioner's name figured at serial no. 100 of the second list of Annexure-I to the aforesaid notification. Having been shown to have secured total marks of 168 and PCB rank 00411, she was short listed as "OM-PVT" candidate. 3. The grievance projected by the petitioner in this petition is that in Biology paper Series-C, she had correctly answered question nos. 16, 28, 31, 41, 44, 60 and 70 as per the option given in the text books, but the respondents have applied a wrong key for evaluating her merit. She claims that, while as the correct answers to these questions as per the text books are options 1, 1, 4, 1, none, 4 and 4, respectively, the options, according to the BOPEE key are 4, 2, 3, 3, 4,.2, and 3, respectively. 4. It is her further claim that she had correctly answered question nos. She claims that, while as the correct answers to these questions as per the text books are options 1, 1, 4, 1, none, 4 and 4, respectively, the options, according to the BOPEE key are 4, 2, 3, 3, 4,.2, and 3, respectively. 4. It is her further claim that she had correctly answered question nos. 32 and 64 of Chemistry paper Series-C according to the text books, but the respondents have applied a wrong key. It is stated that, according to the text books, the correct answers to question nos. 32 and 64 were options 4 and 2, but, as per key, the respondents have described options 2 and 3, respectively, as answers to these questions. 5. Precisely, the case of the petitioner is that since each of these questions carried one mark, therefore, she is entitled to 9 more marks in lieu of her having correctly answered these questions in accordance with the options provided therefor in the text books. It is stated that if, and once, she is given 9 more marks on account of the aforesaid questions, her merit position would rise to 177 and her ranking would go up to 00195, and that she would figure in the merit list, namely, Annexure-I to Notification dated 05.08.2013, above the candidate shown at serial no. 68, who, too, has secured 177 marks and rank of 00195 and has been admitted to MBBS Course in the Government Medical College, Srinagar. Specific averments in this regard have been made in paragraphs 14(a) and 14(b) of the writ petition. 6. It may be pertinent to mention here that the petitioner has also averred in the petition that when the answer key of the BOPEE was out and she tallied the answers of the questions that she had attempted with the said answer key of the BOPEE, it was found by her that at least 11 questions had wrong answers in the answer key. She, accordingly, made a representation to the respondents for evaluating her answer scripts strictly in accordance with the answers given by her on the basis of the option given in the text books and to give her exact marks, merit and rank that she deserved. However, no action was taken by the respondents on her said representation which compelled her to file yet another representation to the same effect, but to no avail. 7. However, no action was taken by the respondents on her said representation which compelled her to file yet another representation to the same effect, but to no avail. 7. Respondents 1 to 3, i.e., the BOPEE and its functionaries, have filed their objections. In sub-paragraphs second and third of paragraph 1 of the preliminary objections, it is stated that after the completion of 4th Session of CET-2013 the Answer Key of each Question Paper was hosted on the official Website of the BOPEE in the evening of 28.07.2013 for information of all the candidates who had appeared in the examination and two days' time was given to the aspirants for making representations. It is further stated therein that respondents received representations from interested candidates which were consolidated and, accordingly, all the representations were referred to two experts in addition to paper setter for their opinion. "Accordingly, the key was revised and all the papers were evaluated according to the revised key including those who did not make any representation. Thus benefit of the revised key was given to all those who appeared in the Common Entrance Test (CET), including those who had made representations". 8. The aforesaid statement is repeated in paragraph 5 of the preliminary objections in the following terms: "That it is submitted that as per the BOPEE guidelines the candidates who appeared in CET were asked to submit within two days representations if any, against question papers. A good number of representations were received both at Jammu and Srinagar. Some of these representations were on common questions. These representations were sorted out and sent to two subject experts in addition to paper setters. The key was revised in light of opinion of the experts and its benefit was given to all the candidates including to those who did not make any representation like the petitioner herein. It is pertinent to mention here that in all such examinations including examinations conducted by Union Public Service Commission, State Public Service Commission, UGC, Universities etc., at times, some questions are found incorrect or ambiguous or capable of having two answers. They also send question papers to one or two experts. The answering respondents had also sent question papers to two experts in addition to the paper setter together with the representations and then revised answer key accordingly. They also send question papers to one or two experts. The answering respondents had also sent question papers to two experts in addition to the paper setter together with the representations and then revised answer key accordingly. Whether a question is correct or not will be decided by the expert and there has to be some limit to the number of the experts. If three experts including paper setter have reviewed the question paper, that is more than what a reasonable and prudent man would expect. It cannot be reopened for further examination which will open a Pandora box and will give rise to multiple litigation. Moreover, it is a settled principle of law that Hon'ble Court cannot act as an expert in such kind of selections." 9. In paragraph 2 of the preliminary objections, the respondents have sought to refute the claim of the petitioner that she had made the representation, annexure "E" to the petition. It is stated that the said representation neither has signature of the receipt clerk, receipt No., nor any date of submission before the office of answering respondents. 10. In paragraph 9 of the para-wise reply, responding to the specific averments made in paragraph 14(b) of the writ petition, it is averred that the Biology paper of the petitioner was evaluated by the subject expert without the representation made by the petitioner and the answers given by the petitioner to question nos. 16, 28, 41 and 60 were found incorrect; whereas benefit was given to the petitioner in respect of question nos. 31, 44, 70. It is stated that the grievance of the petitioner has already been redressed by the subject experts without any representation made by her. 11. Respondent no. 4, i.e., the Principal, Government Medical College, Srinagar, in his short reply has submitted that the writ petition is against the BOPEE and that he has no role in selecting candidates for MBBS Course. Respondent no. 5, Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu, has not filed any objections. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 13. Respondent no. 5, Principal, Government Medical College, Jammu, has not filed any objections. 12. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the matter. 13. At the outset, it may be observed that respondents in their objections have made startling revelations, referred to and quoted hereinabove which are demonstrative of the factum that the sanctity of the results of the CET 2013 has been seriously affected and, therefore, the claims put forth by the petitioner cannot be said to be wholly imaginative, unfounded or without any merit. The contention of the petitioner that the answer keys were wrong is not only buttressed by the averments made in the objections filed by BOPEE, but is candidly accepted and admitted. Not only that, it is also admitted that key answers of three of the questions of the Biology paper identified by the petitioner, namely, question nos. 31, 44 and 70 were, in fact, wrong and that benefit thereof was given to the petitioner. In respect of four other questions, namely, question nos. 16, 28, 41 and 60, it is stated that answers given by the petitioner were wrong. It is not the case of the respondents that the key answers of these questions were correct. The respondents have also maintained a conspicuous silence about the two questions of the Chemistry paper, namely, question nos. 32 and 64 with respect to which the petitioner has specifically stated that the key answers of these questions, too, were wrong and that she had correctly answered these questions as per the text books. 14. In the objections it is stated that representations of the candidates were sent to two experts and the paper setter, and that the answer Keys were, accordingly, revised. The answer scripts of the candidates were, thereafter, evaluated on the basis of answers in such revised Keys. It is not disclosed in the objections as to how many representations were received, which answers in the Keys were questioned by such candidates and which answers in such Keys were found to be incorrect. At the top of it, it is not the case of the respondents that the revised Keys were publicized by the BOPEE for information of the candidates. Selection of candidates and admission to such courses as the BOPEE is entrusted with demand a high degree of transparency. The BOPEE cannot afford to act in a surreptitious manner. At the top of it, it is not the case of the respondents that the revised Keys were publicized by the BOPEE for information of the candidates. Selection of candidates and admission to such courses as the BOPEE is entrusted with demand a high degree of transparency. The BOPEE cannot afford to act in a surreptitious manner. After having hosted the original answer Keys on its Website for information of the candidates, the principles of natural justice and fair play would demand that the revised Keys were publicized for information of the candidates. That, admittedly, has not been done. The BOPEE has, instead, chosen to act in a totally clandestine fashion. 15. Coming to the case of the petitioner, it is admitted by the respondents that answers in the Key of Biology paper in respect of question nos. 31, 44 and 70 were wrong. It is, however, stated that benefit of these questions was given to the petitioner. It is not made clear whether such benefit was given to the petitioner before the declaration of the results or thereafter. It is also stated that answers given by the petitioner in question nos. 16, 28, 41 and 60 were found to be incorrect. The case of the petitioner is that the answers in the Key were wrong. Nothing is stated in the objections in that behalf. As already mentioned, nothing is said by the respondents in their objections about the two questions in the Chemistry paper, answers in the Key whereof the petitioner has questioned. 16. The answer keys have been, admittedly, revised by the BOPEE at the back of, and without any information thereabout to, the candidates, including the petitioner. The petitioner has been deprived of an opportunity to tally her answers with the revised Keys. Such a valuable right of the petitioner cannot be repudiated on the plea that the petitioner had not made the representation within time, moreso when the respondents had revised the answer Keys. 17. It is true that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts. But there is no expert opinion on record with regard to the questions identified by the petitioner. 17. It is true that this Court cannot sit in appeal over the opinion of the experts. But there is no expert opinion on record with regard to the questions identified by the petitioner. Further, as rightly put by learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments, the petitioner does not know what answer Keys were actually adopted and applied by the respondents for evaluation of the answer scripts, since the revised Keys were not publicized. It is not the case of the respondents that all answers in all the Keys together with all the question papers were sent to the experts for their opinion. Their case is that representations submitted by some of the candidates were referred to the experts alongwith answer. Keys and question papers, not that the answers identified by the petitioner, too, were referred to the experts. 18. Now, the question is what relief can be granted in the present writ petition. The petitioner has not challenged the select list or the selection of any candidate. She claims that if her answer scripts in Biology paper and the Chemistry paper are correctly evaluated, her merit position and ranking would go up to entitle her admission in Government Medical College, Srinagar. The seat capacity of Medical College, Srinagar, and, for that matter, in any of the Medical Institutions where such admissions are made pursuant to CET, is not elastic. Therefore, even if her answer scripts are directed to be re-evaluated and, ultimately, she is found to be making the grade, the question is whether such a relief can be granted to the petitioner. Learned counsel for the petitioner in this behalf, citing and replying upon the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar, (2013) 4 SCC 690 , submitted that once the answers contained in the answer Keys are found to be incorrect, the whole results gets vitiated qua every candidate whether or not he is party to the writ petition, and that selection made on the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable. 19. In the aforesaid case, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, applications had been invited by the Bihar State Staff Selection Commission for appointment against the posts of Junior Engineer. The selection process comprised a written objective type examination. 210 candidates had qualified for appointment in terms of the relevant rules. 19. In the aforesaid case, relied upon by the learned counsel for the petitioner, applications had been invited by the Bihar State Staff Selection Commission for appointment against the posts of Junior Engineer. The selection process comprised a written objective type examination. 210 candidates had qualified for appointment in terms of the relevant rules. The evaluation of the answer scripts was assailed by 13 unsuccessful candidates in a writ petition. Out of 210 selected candidates, 188 candidates were appointed during the pendency of the writ petition. The selected candidates were not impleaded as respondents in the writ petition. The petitioners prayed for a limited relief of writ of mandamus to the Staff Selection Commission to produce the answer sheets in the Court and to get the same re-evaluated manually by an independent body. The learned Single Judge referred the model answer key to two experts who found several such answers to be wrong. In addition, two questions were also found to be wrong while two others were found to have been repeated. Another question was found to be defective as the choices in the answer key were printed, but only partially. Based on the report of the said two experts, the Single Judge of the High Court held that 41 model answers out of 100 were wrong. It was also held that two questions were wrong while two others were repeated. The learned Single Judge on that basis held that the-entire examination was liable to be cancelled and so also the appointments made on the basis thereof. Certain further and consequential directions were also issued. On appeal, the Division Bench modified the order, holding that fresh examination in Civil Engineering Paper only was sufficient to rectify the defect and to prevent injustice to any candidate. The case was finally taken to the Supreme Court. 20. Before the Supreme Court, one of the points argued was that the High Court had committed an error in quashing the entire selection process even when the petitioners had not made any prayer to that effect. It was argued that a relief which was not even prayed for by the writ petitioners could not be granted by the Court whatever may have been the compulsion of equity, justice and good conscience. It was argued that a relief which was not even prayed for by the writ petitioners could not be granted by the Court whatever may have been the compulsion of equity, justice and good conscience. The Supreme Court, adverting to the said argument observed and held as under: "It is true that the writ petitioners had not impleaded the selected candidates as party respondents to the case. But it is wholly incorrect to say that the relief prayed for by the petitioners could not be granted to them simply because there was no prayed for the same. The writ petitioners, it is evident, on a plain reading of the writ petition questioned not only the process of evaluation of the answer scripts by the Commission but specifically averred that the `model answer key' which formed the basis for such evaluation was erroneous. One of the questions that, therefore, fell for consideration by the High Court directly was whether the `model answer key' was correct. The High Court had aptly referred that question to experts in the field who, as already noticed above, found the `model answer key' to be erroneous in regard to as many as 45 questions out of a total of 100 questions contained in `A' serious question paper. Other errors were also found to which we have referred earlier. If the key which was used for evaluating the answer sheets was itself defective the result prepared on the basis of such same could be no different. The Division Bench of the High Court was, therefore, perfectly justified in holding that the result of the examination insofar as the same pertained to `A' serious question paper was vitiated. This was bound to affect the result of the entire examination qua every candidate whether or not he was a party to the proceedings. It also goes without saying that if the result was vitiated by the application of a wrong key, any appointment made on the basis thereof would also be rendered unsustainable. The High Court was, in that view, entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition and issue directions considered necessary not only to maintain the purity of the selection process but also to ensure that no candidate earned an undeserved advantage over others by application of an erroneous key." (Underlining supplied) 21. The High Court was, in that view, entitled to mould the relief prayed for in the writ petition and issue directions considered necessary not only to maintain the purity of the selection process but also to ensure that no candidate earned an undeserved advantage over others by application of an erroneous key." (Underlining supplied) 21. Learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of arguments invited the attention of this Court to the recent developments with regard to conduct of the BOPEE at its highest level whereby it has come to fore that the question papers of CETs for past many years have been allegedly sold to candidates before the conduct of such tests. He submitted that this year's CET is no different in that the BOPEE has surreptitiously revised its model answer keys and prepared the results in a hush, hush manner. Learned counsel submitted that given the facts and circumstances disclosed by none other than BOPEE itself, this is a fit case where, moulding the relief prayed for by the petitioner, the answers scripts of the petitioner in Series-C Biology and Chemistry papers alongwith the question papers and revised answer keys thereof are directed to be referred to Experts not only for re-evaluation but also for checking whether any question was erroneous or defective. 22. It may be mentioned here that that petitioner has placed some material on record of this petition to indicate that the answers given by her were correct. This Court is not an expert in the field, nor can this Court sit in appeal over the opinion of the Experts. However, possibility that some questions were defective or erroneous cannot be ruled out. This aspect has not been gone into by the BOPEE. For instance, question no. 16 of Biology paper Series-C together with the options given thereunder reads as under: Addiction of LSD leads to: 1. hallucination 2. damage to kidneys 3. damage to lungs 4. mental and emotional disturbances The material placed on record by the petitioner from Wikipedia mentions, "Lysergic acid diethylamide, abbreviated LSD or LSD-25 .... LSD is non addictive, is not known to cause brain damage ..." etc. 23. Notwithstanding what the petitioner has answered, the question is if LSD is described to be "non addictive", whether the question no. mental and emotional disturbances The material placed on record by the petitioner from Wikipedia mentions, "Lysergic acid diethylamide, abbreviated LSD or LSD-25 .... LSD is non addictive, is not known to cause brain damage ..." etc. 23. Notwithstanding what the petitioner has answered, the question is if LSD is described to be "non addictive", whether the question no. 16 as set in the Question Paper, in light of the options given thereunder, reproduced above, was perfect, erroneous or defective? 24. Though in the present case, it is submitted on behalf of the respondents that since the results were prepared on the basis of the revised answer Keys, therefore, the ratio of the judgment in Rajesh Kumar v. State of Bihar (supra), would not be strictly attracted, but the fact remains that neither the revised Keys have been publicized nor the representation of the petitioner or her answer scripts have been sent to the Experts for re-evaluation. The aforesaid Supreme Court judgment opens with the words, "Application of an erroneous `model answer key' for evaluation of answer scripts of candidates appearing in a competitive examination is bound to lead to erroneous results and an equally erroneous inter se merit list of such candidates". In the event the claims of the petitioner are found to be correct, the BOPEE would be bound to re-draw the merit list. The functioning of the BOPEE is already under a severe scanner. There are grave allegations of corruption rampant in the Organization which are under investigation against its functionaries from top to bottom. It cannot be allowed to play with the sentiments and careers of the aspiring students who burn their midnight oil to achieve their, cherished educational goals. Enough is enough, no more laxity. The petitioner is stated to have been a position holder all through. Her dreams for the achievement of which she must have been incessantly working cannot be allowed to be shattered on the ground that it would open a Pandora box. Enough is enough, no more laxity. The petitioner is stated to have been a position holder all through. Her dreams for the achievement of which she must have been incessantly working cannot be allowed to be shattered on the ground that it would open a Pandora box. One wonders, given the kind of reports about the functioning of the BOPEE, inclusive of its erstwhile top brass (made even before the Division Bench of this Court hearing the PIL concerning the matter) and the fact that the BOPEE has had to revise its answer Keys this year, what would be the extent of knowledge and expertise of its paper setters and the experts, and the reputation of its printers. It is enigmatic that the BOPEE has revised the answer keys without making them public. The BOPEE has to set its home right; let it be now, else it may be never, and the denizens of the State would have to bear with the ever deteriorating health services and poor patient care. In any case, this is a matter where, this Court feels, the curtain needs to be lifted. 25. It is, accordingly, ordered as under: i) that respondents 1 to 3 shall disclose the revised keys in Series-C of Biology and Chemistry papers of CET-13 to the petitioner by 01.12.2013 enabling her to recheck the questions and her answers. Within two days, thereafter, i.e., by 4 p.m. of 03.12.2013, the petitioner shall file her representation specifically indicating therein the questions and answers she would like to have re-evaluated. Within two days, thereafter, i.e. by 05.12.2013, the BOPEE shall send through special messenger the representation that would be made by the petitioner together with the question papers and her answer scripts of Series-C Biology and Chemistry papers to the Heads of the Department of Biology and Chemistry, University of Kashmir, respectively, in sealed covers; ii) The Heads of the Department of Biology and Chemistry, University of Kashmir, shall appoint Expert Bodies of minimum three Members each of good repute and knowledge of their respective Departments which may be headed by the HODs themselves. The Expert Bodies so constituted shall, apart from re-evaluating the answers of the petitioner written in the answer scripts of Series-C Biology and Chemistry papers, respectively, shall also examine whether or not any of the questions in the two Series papers were defective or erroneous. The Expert Bodies so constituted shall, apart from re-evaluating the answers of the petitioner written in the answer scripts of Series-C Biology and Chemistry papers, respectively, shall also examine whether or not any of the questions in the two Series papers were defective or erroneous. The HODs concerned shall prepare and submit their respective reports before the Registrar Judicial of this Court in sealed covers by or before 1 p.m. on 12.12.2013. The Expert Bodies shall also give reasons and supporting material in support of their findings. The reports to be so made shall also disclose the names and other biodata of the Experts as may be associated with the Expert Bodies. It is made clear that the HODs would be free to associate any Expert with the Expert Body, be it from the University of Kashmir or from any other University within or outside the State. The bills of expenses incurred thereon together with the fee of the Experts, if any, shall be submitted to the Registrar Judicial of this Court alongwith the reports, to be borne by the BOPEE. It is also made clear if in any of these Departments HOD is not available, the needful as directed above shall be done by the person in charge or next to the HOD in the Department; iii) On account of the fact that the classes have started sometime in September or so, this petition does not brook any further delay. It, therefore, becomes imperative that the calendar given above is strictly adhered to by all concerned, without any laxity. It is made clear that no further opportunity or extension in time shall be granted for the aforesaid purposes on any count whatsoever. Any defaults made shall be viewed very seriously, which may entail appropriate proceedings against the defaulters. 26. Keeping in view the urgency involved, this petition shall be listed before this Court for further consideration and orders on 13.12.2013, in supplementary cause list as case no. 1. 27. The Registrar Judicial, High Court of J&K, Srinagar, is directed to fax/furnish copies of this order in its entirety to the BOPEE Office both at Srinagar and Jammu, as also to Registrar, University of Kashmir, for doing the needful at their end in terms of the aforesaid directions, and to the learned appearing counsel for the parties, today itself.