JUDGMENT : Bansi Lal Bhat, J. 1. These Letters Patent Appeals arise out of a common judgment dated 30th September, 2014, passed by the learned Writ Court in OWP No. 1063/2014 and connected petitions dismissing the same on the ground that the contentions of the petitioners contrary to the opinion of the three Subject Experts, that the questions were absurd or incorrect, could not be entertained. The Common Entrance Test 2014 (CET 2014) was conducted by the Jammu & Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations (for brevity 'the Board') on 7th and 8th of June, 2014. The answer key was published on the website of the Board on 8th July, 2014. Liberty was given to the candidates to make representations in respect of any error in the answer key within two days from the date of such publication. According to the Board, 276 representations were received from the candidates against the answer key. Same were referred to the Expert Committees alongwith material relied upon by the candidates in support of their individual representations. 2. The Expert Committees considered the representations and recommended nullifications of 17 questions and change in answer of two questions, one each in Biology and Chemistry. The Board published the revised answer key on its website. The result was, accordingly, notified on the basis of evaluation of merit of candidates as per the revised key. 3. The writ petitioners, including the appellants herein, assailed the decision taken by the Board in regard to nullification of 17 questions and change in answer of two questions on the ground that the decision was taken without competence and authority and that one of the answers to nullified questions was correct and its nullification was not justified. It was urged before the learned Writ Court that nullification of questions has deprived them of the marks they would have earned had the evaluation been made on the basis of the original answer key. The writ petitioners, in their individual petitions claimed to have correctly answered different questions set out in the writ petitions. It was further urged before the learned Writ Court that if the Board had adhered to the original answer key the writ petitioners would have been selected. The writ petitioners, in their individual petitions claimed to have correctly answered different questions set out in the writ petitions. It was further urged before the learned Writ Court that if the Board had adhered to the original answer key the writ petitioners would have been selected. It was also urged that by nullifying the aforementioned questions, the Board has created a situation, where merit has been converted into demerit, to the detriment of the writ petitioners without affording them an opportunity of being heard. 4. Next it was urged before the learned Writ Court, that in terms of the guidelines in force on the date for initiation of process to conduct CET of 2014, there was no provision for nullification of a question and in case none of the answers provided under revised key were found to be correct, one point was to be awarded to all the candidates and where more than one answers were found to be correct, a candidate, indicating either of such answers, was to get credit for having answered the question correctly. It was further urged that the decision taken by the Board was unwarranted and suffered from lack of jurisdiction on the ground that even in case of nullified questions one of the answers in the answer key was correct and thus there was no scope for changing the answers. It was urged that action taken on the basis of Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations Rules, 2014 (for brevity 'Rules') notified vide SRO 168 dated 10th June, 2014, was without jurisdiction as the Rules were not in vogue on the date selection process was initiated and the same could not have been applied to CET 2014. 5. The stand taken by the respondents before the learned Writ Court was that the Board has adhered to the guidelines and the decision taken did not warrant interference. It was pleaded that the Information Brochure for CET 2014, issued by the Board, provided for notification of answer key immediately after conducting of the test, to enable the candidates to make representation about correctness of answers. Denying the allegations of overstepping its limits, the Board maintained that the Rules came into force well before finalization of selection process. It was pleaded that the Information Brochure for CET 2014, issued by the Board, provided for notification of answer key immediately after conducting of the test, to enable the candidates to make representation about correctness of answers. Denying the allegations of overstepping its limits, the Board maintained that the Rules came into force well before finalization of selection process. Representations received from the candidates against the answer key were referred to Expert Committees and the Board took the decision on the basis of recommendations made by the Expert Committees in regard to nullification of 17 questions and change in answer of two questions. The decision was taken keeping in view the calendar laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court for finalization of admission to professional colleges. 6. On consideration of the respective stands of the parties, the learned Writ Court, while referring to the directions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in regard to time schedule for completion process for admission to 1st MBBS Course, noticed that the admission process for 1st MBBS course was to be completed by 30th September, 2014. The learned Writ Court formulated the following issues for determination: (a) Whether Board has power and authority to nullify questions and ignore questions so nullified while assessing merit of candidates/examinees? (b) In case Board is held to have such power and jurisdiction, whether, in the facts and circumstances of the case, nullification of 17 questions was justified and change in answers to 02 questions was justified. 7. The learned Writ Court was of the opinion that Section 9(1)(a) of the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations Act, 2002 vested power with the Board to take all steps considered necessary for making selection which included the power to nullify or cancel a question found to be absurd or with none of the options correct. Referring to the Rules published in the Government Gazette dated 10th June, 2014, the learned writ court was of the view that the Rules specifically vested the Board with the power to nullify or cancel a question found to be absurd or with none of the options correct. The learned Writ Court arrived at the conclusion that the Rules of 2014 were operational before the admission process was completed. The learned Writ Court arrived at the conclusion that the Rules of 2014 were operational before the admission process was completed. The learned writ court did not agree with the contentions raised on behalf of the writ petitioners including the appellants that the nullification of 17 questions deprived the writ petitioners of any advantage. It found that the merit position would remain unaltered as not only the writ petitioners but all other candidates would get one mark each for the absurd question(s) with none of the options being correct. The decision of the Board not to award any mark for such questions dealt with all the candidates in even manner. It found that there was no material departure from Information Brochure published by the Board. 8. In answer to 2nd issue, the learned Writ Court found that after consolidation of representations, the Board approached the Test Coordinator to constitute Committee of Experts to look into the representations and since representations received pertained to all the three papers viz Physics, Chemistry and Biology, three Committees, each comprising of three Subject Experts with doctorate in the subject and 10 years teaching experience to their credit, were constituted. No member of such Committees belonged to Jammu and Kashmir State. The Subject Experts of each Committee unanimously recommended nullification of questions referred to them and the Board took the decision regarding nullification/deletion based upon the recommendation of Subject Experts. The arguments raised on behalf of the writ petitioners including the appellants were accordingly repelled. 9. The fact that the admission process of different courses through CET 2014 was to be concluded within the prescribed time, i.e., upto 30th September, 2014, in terms of the directions of the Hon'ble apex Court is not disputed by the appellants. The only grievance projected by the appellants is that the Respondent-Board has nullified the questions illegally and improperly. It is claimed that the appellants have given answers to various questions in accordance with the first answer key which are correct as per NCERT text books, but the revised key has nullified the aforesaid questions depriving the appellants of marks awardable as per the original answer key. The respondents' action of nullifying the valid questions answered correctly as per the original answer key and in accordance with NCERT text books, is said to be arbitrary and tainted with malice. The respondents' action of nullifying the valid questions answered correctly as per the original answer key and in accordance with NCERT text books, is said to be arbitrary and tainted with malice. The act of nullification is said to be unjustified, irrational and contrary to rules. The appellants have questioned the authority of the Board to nullify any question after declaration of result in terms of original answer key. It is contended that the appellants have not been given an opportunity of being heard before nullifying the questions. It is further contended that the Rules of 2014 were not in vogue on 15.04.2014 when original answer key was published. It is disputed that the nullified questions were vague or ambiguous and were required to be referred to Subject Experts. It is contended that the learned writ Court has not returned the finding with respect to the status of nullified questions. 10. We have heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the matter. 11. After wading through the pleadings of the parties before the writ court as also the grounds urged in the memo of appeals, it cannot be disputed that the entire gamut of controversy has been properly concretized by the learned writ court in the form of two issues referred to hereinabove in the preceding paragraph. The 1st issue relates to power and authority of the Board to nullify the questions and ignore questions so nullified while assessing merit of candidates. The learned writ court has referred to paragraph 11 of the Information Brochure for CET 2014 issued by the Board. In order to find out the source from which authority is derived by the Board to nullify or delete a question, reference to the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations Act, 2002, (for short "Act of 2002") is inevitable. Section 9(1)(a) thereof reads as under: "9. Powers and duties of the Board. In order to find out the source from which authority is derived by the Board to nullify or delete a question, reference to the provisions of the Jammu and Kashmir Board of Professional Entrance Examinations Act, 2002, (for short "Act of 2002") is inevitable. Section 9(1)(a) thereof reads as under: "9. Powers and duties of the Board. (1) The Board shall have the following powers and duties:- (a) To conduct written tests and hold interviews/counseling and take such other steps as may be considered necessary for making selection of candidates to the professional courses in the professional institutions;" A plain reading of the provision makes it abundantly clear that the Board is not only empowered to conduct written tests and hold interviews/counseling for making selection of candidates to the professional courses but has also been vested with ample power to take all necessary steps in this regard. It would be repugnant to reason to hold that such power would not include power to nullify or delete the obsolete, abstract, absurd questions or questions providing options, none of which is correct. The phraseology used in the aforesaid provision would take within its sweep any conceivable situation arising out of questions found to be absurd or providing options which in entirety are wrong. The power to take such other steps as may be considered necessary by the Board for conduct of written tests and holding interviews/counseling, would also include power to nullify or cancel such questions as may be found absurd or providing wrong options on the basis of opinion tendered by the Subject Experts. To hold otherwise would be doing violence to the provision and circumscribing the power and authority of the Board to make a fair, transparent and meaningful exercise for selection of candidates to professional courses in the professional institutions. In our considered opinion, Section 9(1)(a) of the Act of 2002 vests the Board with sufficient powers to nullify absurd questions and questions with wrong options. The power to rectify errors by eliminating the absurd questions and wrong options is inherent and clearly deducible from the provision enacted in Section 9(1)(a) of the Act of 2002. 12. Apart from the aforesaid provision, power of cancellation/deletion of absurd questions or questions where none of the options is found correct is available under Rules of 2014. The power to rectify errors by eliminating the absurd questions and wrong options is inherent and clearly deducible from the provision enacted in Section 9(1)(a) of the Act of 2002. 12. Apart from the aforesaid provision, power of cancellation/deletion of absurd questions or questions where none of the options is found correct is available under Rules of 2014. It is argued on behalf of the appellants that the Rules of 2014 were not in vogue on 25.04.2014, when the admission process was initiated, and, therefore, the Board could not rely upon such rules to nullify as many as 17 questions. Rules of 2014 have been notified vide SRO 168 published on 10th June, 2014. An attempt has been made on part of the appellants to demonstrate that SRO 168 dated 10.06.2014 was received by the officer in charge of Government Gazette on 25.08.2014, and thus, could not have been published on 10.06.2014. Rules of 2014 are further assailed on the ground that same do not conform to Section 23 of the General Clauses Act of 1977, and are, therefore, not having the force of law. Learned counsel for the appellants laid emphasis on the aforesaid provision to buttress their point that the draft rules were required to be published for public response in terms of the aforesaid provision and same could be adopted only after adhering to the procedure laid down in Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1977, which reads hereunder: "23. Learned counsel for the appellants laid emphasis on the aforesaid provision to buttress their point that the draft rules were required to be published for public response in terms of the aforesaid provision and same could be adopted only after adhering to the procedure laid down in Section 23 of the General Clauses Act, 1977, which reads hereunder: "23. Provisions applicable to making of rules or bye-laws after previous publication:- Where, by any Act of Regulation, a power to make rules or bye-laws is expressed to be given subject to the condition of the rules or bye-laws being made after previous publication, then the following provisions shall apply, namely: (1) the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws shall, before making them, publish a draft of the proposed rules or bye-laws for the information of persons likely to be affected thereby; (2) the publication shall be made in such manner as that authority deems to be sufficient, or, if the condition with respect to previous publication so requires, in such manner as [the Government] prescribes; (3) there shall be published with the draft a notice specifying a date on or after which the draft will be taken into consideration; (4) the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws and where the rules or bye-laws are to be made with the sanction, approval or concurrence of another authority, that authority also, shall consider any objection or suggestion which may be received by the authority having power to make the rules or bye-laws from any person with respect to the draft before the date so specified; (5) the publication in the Government Gazette of a rule of bye-law purporting to have been made in exercise of a power to make rules or bye-laws after previous publication shall be conclusive proof that the rule or bye-laws has been duly made." 13. The arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants are without substance. We say so because Section 23 of the General Clauses Act is attracted only when any Act vests power in the authority to make rules subject to the condition of the rules being made after previous publication. The procedure laid down in Section 23 of the General Clauses Act is not universal to every rule making provisions in a statute but is limited to the conditionalities enumerated therein. The procedure laid down in Section 23 of the General Clauses Act is not universal to every rule making provisions in a statute but is limited to the conditionalities enumerated therein. In the instant case, conduct of examinations to professional institutions is regulated by the Act of 2002, Section 23 whereof provides that the Government by notification in the government gazette may make rules for carrying out the purpose of this Act. The Section thus does not provide for previous publication of the draft rules. The rules framed under this Act by the Government attained the force of law when notified in the Government Gazette. It is, therefore, futile to contend that the draft rules were not previously published and procedure laid down in Section 23 of the General Clauses Act of 1977 was not adhered to while notifying the Rules of 2014. The arguments raised on this score are repelled and the judgments relied upon being distinguishable are found not applicable to the facts of this case. 14. It is not disputed that the admission process has to be completed within the given timeframe. The Hon'ble apex Court has held in a series of judgments that the admission in MBBS courses cannot be granted beyond 30th September of the concerned year, or in the mid-sessions. It has further been ruled that unfilled seat of one academic year cannot be filled or directed to be filled up in the next academic year. The time schedule has to be adhered to and completing of admission process within the given timeframe would not admit of lengthy inquiry into the grievances projected by the candidates on one score or the other. 15. Viewed in this backdrop, the issue raised in regard to justification for nullification of 17 questions and change in answers to two questions has to be answered as being without substance. A Division Bench of this Court in LPA No. 223/2013, J & K Board of Professional Entrance Examination v. Qazi Basra, 2014 (4) JKJ 235 [HC] decided on 06th March, 2014, directed constitution of a Committee of Experts to advise the BOPEE as to how and in which manner the Common Entrance Test shall be conducted and further whether it would be permissible to have two correct answer keys for one single question and marks in each question could be given to all the candidates. 16. 16. It is in this perspective that the Government constituted a Committee of Experts headed by the Chairman of the Board, to look into the issues outlined in the Government Order No. 478-GAD of 2014 dated 15th May, 2014. This was followed by promulgation of Rules of 2014 published in Government Gazette on 10.06.2014. The decision taken in regard to nullification/deletion of absurd questions and questions with multiple incorrect options, therefore, adheres to the directions given in the judgment supra and does not depart from the provisions contained in the Information Brochure, which provided that in case of absurd questions or questions with no options providing correct answer, all the candidates would be awarded one mark each. That did not materially alter merit position as all the candidates would get one mark for such questions. Likewise, in case of deleted questions the appellants cannot have any grievance as none of the candidates including the appellants got credit for such deleted questions. 17. The learned writ Court, having the occasion to go through the confidential record of CET of 2014 of the Board found that after receiving representations from the aggrieved candidates, it consolidated the same and approached the Test Coordinator to nominate/constitute Committees to look into the representations which related to all the papers. It appears that three Committees, each comprising of three non local Subject Experts with doctorate in the Subject and 10 years' teaching experience to their credit were constituted. Thus, fairness and impartiality was ensured and arbitrariness was ruled out. The learned writ court found that the Subject Experts of each of the Committees had unanimously recommended nullification of questions referred to them. The Board accordingly took the decision and the questions were nullified/deleted. It is not disputed that the decision taken by the Subject Experts was final and could not be questioned as specifically provided in the Information Brochure. In so far as grievance of the appellants regarding non observance of rules of natural justice are concerned, the same is an argument in despair. In the wake of unanimous opinion of three Subject Experts, in regard to absurdity or wrongness of multiple options given, providing of an opportunity to the appellants to lay proof to the contrary would be a futile exercise. Conducting of such exercise is also impracticable, given the fixed time schedule. It is also fraught with serious consequences. In the wake of unanimous opinion of three Subject Experts, in regard to absurdity or wrongness of multiple options given, providing of an opportunity to the appellants to lay proof to the contrary would be a futile exercise. Conducting of such exercise is also impracticable, given the fixed time schedule. It is also fraught with serious consequences. The Court cannot substitute its own view in place of the view taken by the Experts. It would also not be prudent to reopen such decision, as the grievances would continue to pour in, resulting in reopening of the selection process every time a grievance is projected, and subjecting all selections made to reevaluation thereby imperiling the legitimate interests of selected candidates. After all, there has to be an end to the selection process and same cannot be subjected to reevaluation every time an aggrieved candidate steps in to register a grievance. The mechanism adopted for redressal of grievances of candidates by filing representations within two days of the publication of the answer key with Subject Experts of impeccable character nominated by the Test Coordinator from outside the State of Jammu and Kashmir, sufficiently takes care of genuine grievances of the candidates in regard to absurdity or wrong multiple options of questions. 18. In the aforementioned backdrop, we find no infirmity with the impugned judgment. Therefore, the Letters Patent Appeals, being without any merit, are dismissed. 19. Before parting with this judgment, we would like to place on record our deep sense of anguish in regard to the methodology adopted for selection of multiple choice questions with high rate of error probability as coming to fore in the instant case. The fact that as many as 17 questions had to be nullified/deleted and the answers of two questions had to be changed on the advice of the Subject Experts demonstrates lack of care on the part of the Board in allowing such large scale errors, oblivious of the fact that complacency on the part of the Board authorities would jeopardize the legitimate interests of the student community aspiring to seek berths in professional institutions. The Board has to be vigilant and immediate remedial measures are to be adopted to plug all the loopholes in the system and leave no room for grievance to crop up. The Board has to be vigilant and immediate remedial measures are to be adopted to plug all the loopholes in the system and leave no room for grievance to crop up. It is noted with concern that every year Common Entrance Test brings a fresh wave of litigation leaving a number of candidates with no choice but to resort to litigation which is highly undesirable. It is hoped that the Board Authorities would rise to the occasion and take a final call in the matter, so as to ensure a litigation free Common Entrance Test process and spare the candidates of the agony to channelize their energies in forced litigations. Registry is directed to send copies of this judgment to the Chief Secretary of the State, as also to the Chairman, J & K Board of Professional Entrance Examination, for taking necessary steps as indicated hereinabove