ORDER 1. Heard on admission. 2. The petitioners have prayed for following reliefs in this petition : "(i) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to add 1.25 marks in favour of the petitioners and be given the post of Staff Nurses. (ii) A writ of mandamus commanding the respondents not to give the joining to the post of Staff Nurse to any other person below the merit of the petitioners after adding 1.25 marks respectively in the total of both the petitioners." 3. They urged that relief is based on the model answer of Question No. 14 (page 18). As per petitioners' contention, the appropriate option is "(a) Digestability" whereas in the model answer, the correct answer is shown as "(d) Density". The parties are at loggerheads on the aspect of correct answer. The petitioner has placed reliance on certain books to show that answer "(a) Digestability" is the correct whereas respondents have taken a diametrically opposite view and urged that this aspect is examined in great detail by an Expert Committee consisting of 7 Members. Apart from this, reliance is placed on the document Annexure 3 and 4 to contend that correct answer is "(d) Density". 4. Shri Anil Lala urged that petitioner is a wait listed candidate whereas private respondents names find place in the main merit list. The private respondents have also answered the option (a) aforesaid and; therefore, if any said answer is treated as correct and 1.25 mark is given to the petitioner as a necessary corollary, private respondents will also get similar marks which will keep the distance intact. It is common ground that scope of judicial review in the matter of this nature is limited. Reliance is placed on certain judgments. In opinion of this Court, the legal objection raised by the other side has substance. In an academic matter of this nature, where Expert Body has also applied his mind, the scope of judicial review is very limited. In AIR 1983 SC 1230 (Kanpur University and others v. Samir Gupta and others) it was made clear that when an answer is clearly shown as wrong then only an interference can be made. A correct answer cannot be searched by applying process of reasoning by the writ Court. In AIR 1983 SC 1230 (Kanpur University and others v. Samir Gupta and others) it was made clear that when an answer is clearly shown as wrong then only an interference can be made. A correct answer cannot be searched by applying process of reasoning by the writ Court. In Alok Gupta v. M.P. Professional, Examination Board and others, this Court opined as under : In that situation, the controversy should be resolved by holding the key answer to be correct. This is the ratio of Samir Gupta's case, (1983) 4 SCC 309 : AIR 1983 SC 1230 ) (supra). The other way of saying it is that, it may be that the answer marked by the candidate may not be wholly wrong or may even be closely correct to the key answer, but then unless the key answer is demonstrated to be 'wrong', the key answer should be accepted as correct answer.(See Anjali v. Chairman, Professional Examination Board in 1990 MPU 80): AIR 1990 Madh. Pra. 253). In such a situation, the question would not be held to be defective and the student would not be given any advantage, if he marked any alternative other than the key answer." The Full Bench in 2018 (I) JLJ 333 = 2017 (4) MPLJ 353 (Nitin Pathak v. State of M.P. and others), this Court has opined as under : "28. The scope of interference in academic matters has been examined by the Supreme Court in many cases. In Basavaiah (Dr.) v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh, (2010) 8 SCC 372 : (2010) 2 SCC (LandS) 640, the Court held as under : "38. We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the Courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the Courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The Courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters." 29. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the Courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the Courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The Courts must realize and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters." 29. Supreme Court in another judgment reported as University Grants Commission v. Neha Anil Bobde, 2013 (4) M.P.L.J. (S.C.) 1 : (2013) 10 SCC 519 , held that in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts the Court. The Court held as under : "31. We are of the view that, in academic matters, unless there is a clear violation of statutory provisions, the regulations or the notification issued, the Courts shall keep their hands off since those issues fall within the domain of the experts. This Court in University of Mysore v. C.D. Govinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 , Tariq Islam v. Aligarh Muslim University, (2001) 8 SCC 546 ; and, Rajbir Singh Dalai v. Chaudhary Devi Lai University, (2008) 9 SCC 284 , has taken the view that the Court shall not generally sit in appeal over the opinion expressed by the expert academic bodies and normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of the academic experts who are more familiar with the problem they face, than the Courts generally are. UGC as an expert body has been entrusted with the duty to take steps as it may think fit for the determination and maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research in the university. For attaining the said standards, it is open to UGC to lay down any "qualifying criteria", which has a rational nexus to the object to be achieved, that is, for maintenance of standards of teaching, examination and research. The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. The candidates declared eligible for Lectureship may be considered for appointment as Assistant Professors in universities and colleges and the standard of such a teaching faculty has a direct nexus with the maintenance of standards of education to be imparted to the students of the universities and colleges. UGC has only implemented the opinion of the experts by laying down the qualifying criteria, which cannot be considered as arbitrary, illegal or discriminatory or violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India." 5. In the light of aforesaid, in my view, no case is made out for admission. The admission is declined. The petition is dismissed.