JUDGMENT : R. Subhash Reddy, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal is filed under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent, by original respondent No. 2 in Special Civil Application No. 11274 of 2016, aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge dated 21.07.2016. 2. Respondent No. 1 herein, has filed the aforesaid Special Civil Application seeking a direction against the appellant herein-original respondent No. 2, viz. Gujarat Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Board to consider answer of Question No. 114 as correctly attempted by him, seeking further direction to add marks accordingly in the petitioner's result. 3. By order dated 21.07.2016, the learned Single Judge has allowed the petition in terms of para 12(A) and directed to consider the answer of Question No. 114 as correctly attempted by respondent No. 1 original petitioner and resultantly, directed to add the mark in the result of the original petitioner. 4. The facts are in a narrow compass. Respondent No. 1- original petitioner has appeared in GUJCET 2016 conducted for the purpose of making admissions to courses in medical, dental, pharmacy, etc. The said examination is called Gujarat Common Entrance Test, 2016 (GUJCET 2016) and the examination was held on 10.05.2016 by the appellant- Board. The result of the said examination was declared on 17.05.2016. Respondent No. 1 original petitioner was shown to have obtained 110.5 marks out of 120 marks. Thereafter, he has obtained a copy of OMR Answer Sheet, as provided under Clause 4.5 of the Information Booklet published by the appellant-Board in respect of the said examination. Clause 4.5 of the Information Booklet reads as under: "Rechecking will not be done. If any candidate wishes to have Xerox copy of OMR answer-sheet, the candidate shall have to pay fees of Rs. 200/- along with application made as per Appendix-13 and Xerox copy of the Answer-sheet will be sent to such candidate by post. Fees are to be paid in form of Bank DD of Nationalized Bank payable at Ahmedabad in the name of Secretary, Gujarat Common Entrance Test Cell, Gandhinagar." 5. Respondent No. 1- original petitioner has received OMR Answer Sheet along with Verification Report printed on 27.06.2016. Fees are to be paid in form of Bank DD of Nationalized Bank payable at Ahmedabad in the name of Secretary, Gujarat Common Entrance Test Cell, Gandhinagar." 5. Respondent No. 1- original petitioner has received OMR Answer Sheet along with Verification Report printed on 27.06.2016. It is his case in the petition that though answer to Question No. 114 was given by choosing multiple option (C) and it was the correct answer, precisely, in the petition filed it was his grievance that though he was entitled for award of mark for that, he was denied the benefit of such question and the same was treated as incorrect answer on the ground that he has also put dot mark in Option (B). It was his case that the same was inadvertent, as much as Option (B) was not answered by darkening the circle fully. As such there is no reason for not treating the multiple option (C) chosen by him as not correct. 6. The learned Single Judge, while referring to the rules applicable to GUJCET 2016, and by recording finding that the answering pattern by respondent No. 1- original petitioner- student for question No. 114 does not fall in either of eight illustrations mentioned in Rule 3.8B and further placing reliance on Rule 3.8A(iv), of the Rules has allowed the petition by granting relief in terms of para 12(A) of the petition. 7. Heard Shri A.D. Oza, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, Shri Jal Unwalla, learned counsel appearing with Shri Digant M. Popat, learned advocate for respondent No. 1 and Shri Utkarsh Sharma, learned Assistant Government Pleader for respondent No. 2-State. At admission stage the matter was heard on both sides and this appeal is being disposed of at this stage. 8. In this appeal it is contended by Shri Oza, learned counsel for the appellant that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is contrary to various rules framed by the appellant-Board, which govern the examination of Common Entrance Test. It is contended that the OMR Sheet is assessed through computerization method and it is not examined manually and respondent No. 1- original petitioner has opted for two answers by darkening two options for one multiple question No. 114 of set-1. It is submitted that such answering for two options run contrary to the information/instructions and the rules which govern conduct of examination. It is submitted that such answering for two options run contrary to the information/instructions and the rules which govern conduct of examination. Mainly it is submitted that as per Rule 3.8B of GUJCET Rules, it is clearly stated that no change is to be made after darkening the circle once and it is also made clear in Rule 3.9(iii) of GUJCET Rules that in case, if a candidate/student opts for two or more options for one multiple choice question, one less mark (negative marking) is to be given. It is further contended that if a candidate darkens wrong bubble on wrong sheets rightly/wrongly or accidentally, OMR Sheet evaluation software deducts such entries as double marking and treats the response as incorrect. On the other hand it is submitted by Shri Jal Unwalla, learned counsel for respondent No. 1 that the order passed by the learned Single Judge is well reasoned order and the same is in conformity with the rules applicable to GUJCET, no grounds are made out to interfere with such order. It is contended by the learned counsel that the Rule contemplates that incompletely darkened circle would not be readable and would not be treated as answer. In that view of the matter a dot put against option (B) cannot be read to be wrong answer to deduct the mark. It is submitted that as much as option (B) is not darkened fully and respondent No. 1- original petitioner tried to attempt by selecting at the first instance option (B), but immediately changing his mind he has given it up and has chosen to answer option (C) by completely darkening the circle. Thus, it is submitted that option (B) was never attempted by fully darkening the circle. In that view of the matter, the reasoning assigned by the learned Single Judge is valid and no case is made out for interference. 9. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant rules governing conduct of Common Entrance Test. The said Rules are termed as 'Gujarat Common Entrance Test Rules'. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, the Rules relevant are 3.8A, 3.8B and 3.9. 9. Before we proceed further, we deem it appropriate to refer to the relevant rules governing conduct of Common Entrance Test. The said Rules are termed as 'Gujarat Common Entrance Test Rules'. For the purpose of disposal of this appeal, the Rules relevant are 3.8A, 3.8B and 3.9. Rule 3.8A (i) to (iv) read as under: "3.8A Method of indication of answers in the answer-sheet: Appendix-9 (i) The circle in the answer sheet must completely be darkened with black ink ball point pen (means to cover the circle with black colour e.g. o). Except black ink ball point pen, no other pen or pencil must be used and use of any type of remover is not permissible. If this instruction is violated by the candidate, then his candidature will be cancelled. (ii) It is necessary and compulsory to darken the circle with black ink ball pen completely. (iii) In answer to any question, if a circle is darkened, then for any other answer to the very question, the candidate shall not darken any other circle. (iv) If the circle is darkened less or incompletely, the same shall not be readable by the optical scanner. So in such cases, marks will be given treating the answer as wrong and, therefore, the candidate must darken the circle completely." Rule 3.8B reads as under: "No change to be made after answering once: (i) Candidate shall darken the circle of answer against the question only when the candidate is sure about the right answer to the question. If there is slightest doubt in the mind of candidate with regard to the answer, it is advisable not to darken any circle of the answer (means leave circle blank). If any change is made after having darkened the circle once, the same will not be accepted and such answer will be treated for negative marking as per Rules. Rule 3.9 (i), (ii) and (iii) reads as under: "3.9 Method of Assessment: The answer sheet will be examined on the principle of OMR. The marks will be given by computer on reading the reply (answer). (i) Each multiple choice question carried 1 (one) mark. For each correct answer 1 (one) mark will be given. (ii) For each wrong answer to the multiple choice question, 0.25 (1/4) less marks will deducted (negative marking). The marks will be given by computer on reading the reply (answer). (i) Each multiple choice question carried 1 (one) mark. For each correct answer 1 (one) mark will be given. (ii) For each wrong answer to the multiple choice question, 0.25 (1/4) less marks will deducted (negative marking). (iii) The candidate/student will be given one less mark (negative marking) if two or more options (answers) out of four are opted for one multiple choice question." 10. As per rules/instructions as indicated with regard to method of indication in answer sheets, it is stated that circle in the answer sheet must completely be darkened with black ink ball point pen. As per Rule 3.8A (iii), in answer to any question, if a circle is darkened, then for any other answer to the very question, the candidate shall not darken any other circle. As per Rule 3.8A (iv), if the circle is darkened less or incompletely, the same shall not be readable by the optical scanner. So in such cases, marks will be given treating the answer as wrong and, therefore, the candidate must darken the circle completely. As per Rule 3.8B of the Rules candidates are expected to darken the circle of answer against the question only when the candidate is sure about the right answer to the question. The said Rule further states that if there is slightest doubt in the mind of candidate with regard to the answer, it is advisable not to darken any circle of the answer. It is also stated that if any change is made after having darkened the circle once, the same will not be accepted and such answer will be treated for negative marking as per Rules. As per Rule 3.9(ii) of the Rules provides that for each wrong answer to the multiple choice question, 0.25 (1/4) less marks will deducted (negative marking). On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground that option (B) is not darkened fully, and placing reliance on Rule 3.8A(iv) of the Rules, the learned Single Judge has accepted the claim of respondent No. 1- original petitioner. On perusal of the judgment passed by the learned Single Judge only on the ground that option (B) is not darkened fully, and placing reliance on Rule 3.8A(iv) of the Rules, the learned Single Judge has accepted the claim of respondent No. 1- original petitioner. The learned Single Judge has held that if circle is darkened less or incompletely, the same is not readable by optical scanner and would not be treated as correct answer, as such the attempt made by respondent No. 1- original petitioner in marking option (B) cannot be taken into consideration for evaluating the answer for Question No. 114. The learned Single Judge in the judgment date 21.07.2016 has recorded specific finding that the original petitioner tried to attempt by pen, selecting at the first instance option (B), but, then immediately by changing his mind has given it up, left the pen, and chose to answer option (C) by completely darkening the circle. 11. As recorded by the learned Single Judge, under Rule 3.8A(iv), if the circle is darkened less or incompletely, the same is not readable by the optical scanner. As such the instruction was to darken the circle completely, but we are of the view that the said instruction/rule cannot be read singularly and it has to be read along with other relevant rules under Rule 3.8A(i), (ii), (iii) of the Rules, which were reproduced hereinabove. It is made clear that Rule 3.8A(iii) provides that in answer to any question, if a circle is darkened, then for any other answer to the very question, the candidate shall not darken any other circle. Under Rule 3.8B of the Rules, there is clear instruction/Rule which says that no change is to be made after answering once. It also makes further clear that if any change is made after having darkened the circle once, the same will not be accepted and such answer will be treated for negative marking as per Rules. The learned Single Judge with reference to Rule 8B of the Rules has recorded finding that the answering pattern of respondent No. 1- original petitioner- student for question No. 114, in the present case does not fall in either of eight illustrations mentioned in Rule 3.8B of the Rules. Original OMR Sheet is made available for perusal of this Court. The learned Single Judge with reference to Rule 8B of the Rules has recorded finding that the answering pattern of respondent No. 1- original petitioner- student for question No. 114, in the present case does not fall in either of eight illustrations mentioned in Rule 3.8B of the Rules. Original OMR Sheet is made available for perusal of this Court. Looking at the option exercised by respondent No. 1- original petitioner for question No. 114, it clearly falls in the illustrations of 'incorrect method' shown at serial No. 4 in the tabular form of the diagram mentioned in Rule 3.8B. The said tabular form is reproduced hereunder: 12. Further, we are also of the view that in a matter of this nature, the fact of totality of rules to be considered. No finding can be recorded with reference to one rule leaving other relevant rules, which have bearing on the issue. As we are of the view that the answering pattern adopted by respondent No. 1- original petitioner falls in 'incorrect method' as per the illustration shown in Rule 3.8B of the Rules, the plea of respondent No. 1- petitioner that he is awarded mark by treating Answer (C) as correct, cannot be accepted. Further, under Rule 3.9(iii) it is provided that candidate/student will be given one less mark (negative marking) if two or more options (answers) out of four are opted for one multiple choice question. In that view of the matter, in view of the illustration under Rule 3.8B of the Rules read with Rule 3.8A(iii) and Rule 3.9(ii) and (iii) of the Rules, we are of the considered view that the appellant-Board has rightly taken the answer to Question No. 114, as answered by respondent No. 1- original petitioner, as 'not correct' and such action is in conformity with the rules. 13. Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Secretary, Tamil Nadu Public Service Commission v. A.B. Natarajan, reported in 2014 (O) GLHEL-SC 55805 also supports the case of the appellant- Board. While considering the scope of instructions for such examination the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paras 13 and 19 as under: "13. It is an admitted fact that serious irregularities had been committed by the candidates in their answer books. While considering the scope of instructions for such examination the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held in paras 13 and 19 as under: "13. It is an admitted fact that serious irregularities had been committed by the candidates in their answer books. If one looks at the instructions, which had been given to the candidates for writing the answer books, it is clear that they had been informed in unequivocal terms that they had to use only blue, blue-black or black ink and they were supposed to use only fountain pen, steel pen or ballpoint pen. In spite of the said instructions, several candidates had used sketch pens, pencils and pens or pencils with different colours. Use of different colours or pencils with different colours. Use of different colours or pencil could have given some indication to the examiner about the identity of the candidates. These facts clearly show that either the candidates were absolutely careless or they wanted to give some indication with regard to themselves to the examiner. If an candidate writes his answer book giving some indication with regard to himself with the help of a different ink or pencil - other than the prescribed writing instrument and the colour of ink, one can definitely presume that the candidate did not act in a bona fide manner. 19. In the instant case, it is an admitted fact that there were serious violations of the instructions given to candidates while answering the questions. Although all these details were placed before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge did not give importance to these irregularities and dismissed the petitions, but when the appeals were filed, in our opinion, the Division Bench of the High Court rightly understood the importance of such irregularities and allowed the appeals by setting aside the selection of the candidates who had committed such irregularities while writing their answers books. We are of the view that if such a strict view is not taken by a constitutional body which has been entrusted with the work of selecting best candidates, the entire purpose behind having the Commission or any other such body for examining merit of candidates would be frustrated. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellate Court was absolutely justified in allowing the appeals and by holding that all those candidates who had committed material irregularities could not be declared selected." 14. We are, therefore, of the view that the appellate Court was absolutely justified in allowing the appeals and by holding that all those candidates who had committed material irregularities could not be declared selected." 14. By applying the ratio laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the aforesaid judgment, we are of the view that if student/candidate answers in violation of clear instructions, which are given to the candidates, which govern the field of examination, no claim can be made for award of marks for the answers which are not in conformity with the instructions. 15. It is also to be noted that time and again this Court and the Hon'ble Supreme Court restricted the scope of interference by way of judicial review in the matters relating to academic bodies. Such instructions/rules must have been prepared based on the suggestions from experts in the field of education and such rules/instructions are to be normally accepted unless such instructions are ex facie illegal or run contrary to statutory provisions or fundamental rules. In absence of availability of any such grounds, normally this Court cannot issue any directions substituting the view of the experts. In that view of the matter also we are of the view that this is not a case for judicial review for grant of directions as prayed for by respondent No. 1 - original petitioner. 16. For the aforesaid reasons, we allow this Letters Patent Appeal by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 21st July 2016 passed in Special Civil Application No. 11274 of 2016. We make no order as to cost. 17. As the Letters Patent Appeal is allowed, the Civil Application stands disposed of in the aforesaid terms.