JUDGMENT : Hasnain Massodi, J. 1. Petitioner, after he was declared successful in 10+2 Examination, conducted by J & K Board of School Education, appeared in Common Entrance Test, 2013, held by J & K Board of Professional Entrance Examination, for admission of meritorious students in different Professional Colleges of the State Board declared CET 2013 result on 6th August 2013. Petitioner was shown to have secured 177.8 marks and ranked 180 in result notification. Petitioner, not satisfied with marks and rank awarded, approached Board with an application under Right to Information Act, 2009, for furnishing him Xerox copy of OMR and revised key. When requisite said information was not provided to him, he filed writ petition, being OWP No. 1139/2013, for a direction to Board to provide him information with due despatch. Writ petition was disposed of on August 20, 2013, with a direction to Board to provide petitioner requisite information preferably by August 29, 2013. 2. Information sought appears to have been provided to petitioner as he on the basis of information provided, approached Board with a request to award him marks for five questions, that according to petitioner, were correctly answered by him but the keys followed by Board gave incorrect answers to questions. Representation made by petitioner appears to have gone unresponded, constraining him to come up with writ petition on hand. 3. Petitioner's case is that answers given by him in OMR to question Nos. 10, 27, 66 (Biology) and question Nos. 32 and 56 (Chemistry), are correct and answer key on the basis whereof marks have been awarded, does not give correct answers. It is pleaded that in case petitioner is awarded five marks, his marks would go up to 182.8 and he would rank higher to rank shown in the result notification. Petitioner, while insisting that answers given by him were correct, relied upon NCERT textbooks and some other textbooks as also evaluation made by Banaras Hindu University, mentioned in petition. 4. Respondent Board, after writ petition was filed, decided to constitute an Experts Committee. The Experts Committee, as record produced would reveal, examined the matter and for reasons detailed in its report, held answers given to question Nos. 10, 27, 66 (Biology) and question Nos. 32 and 56 (Chemistry), in the answer key, to be correct and answers given by petitioner not to be correct. The Experts Committee, as record produced would reveal, examined the matter and for reasons detailed in its report, held answers given to question Nos. 10, 27, 66 (Biology) and question Nos. 32 and 56 (Chemistry), in the answer key, to be correct and answers given by petitioner not to be correct. Petitioner, according to Experts Committee, was rightly not awarded marks for aforementioned questions. 5. Constitution of Experts Committee, its in-depth examination of the matter and report submitted by it, clinches the matter. 6. Learned counsel for petitioner insists that opinion given and conclusions drawn by Experts Committee are not correct and that petitioner, notwithstanding opinion of Experts Committee, stick to his stand that answers given by him are correct and he deserves to be awarded marks on account of answers given by him to aforementioned questions. It is suggested that the matter can be sent to yet another Committee of Experts for its opinion. 7. Argument advanced and course suggested by learned counsel for petitioner cannot be accepted. In a matter, like one in hand, the Court can ill afford to undertake an unending academic exercise. 8. Controversy by its very nature is to be short-lived and concluded with maximum speed. The matter relates to admission in Professional College and process is to be concluded within fixed timeframe. We cannot afford to keep pot boiling and allow Damocles Sword hang on students, expected to devote their time resources to their studies. It is pertinent to point out that petitioner, even with 177.8 marks and 180 rank, has found admission in MBBS Course, though in a college not of his choice. He, therefore, would do well to pursue his studies with due dedication and show to one and all on the strength of his performance that marks and rank awarded, did not reflect his true merit. As regards present controversy it is to be put to rest. This apart, a closer look on petition would reveal that all that petitioner asked, was appointment of Experts Committee and reference of questions to said committee. He claimed second relief only in case Experts Committee found merit in his claim. His prayer has been in effect granted inasmuch as respondent Board has appointed an Experts Committee and Experts have gone through the matter and for reasons detailed in the report, held petitioner's claim to be without merit. He claimed second relief only in case Experts Committee found merit in his claim. His prayer has been in effect granted inasmuch as respondent Board has appointed an Experts Committee and Experts have gone through the matter and for reasons detailed in the report, held petitioner's claim to be without merit. Petitioner, therefore, can no more have any grievances. The Experts Committee has given verdict against him and he cannot ask for second Experts Committee as either of parties can ask for third Experts Committee and so on and so forth. Such an option, as already indicated, is not available to the Court or either of parties. If followed, it may lead to an unending process, stretching over duration of course, creating unnecessary ripples in otherwise calm academic atmosphere. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed.