JUDGMENT : 1. The grievance of the petitioner is in how one of the options in the objective type questions set for the written examination has been phrased. 2. Ordinarily, when options are given for a candidate to pick from the suggested answers in an objective type examination, the last option may be “none of the above”. However, in this case, several of the questions carry the last alternative in the form of “answer not known”. The petitioner finds this objectionable and says that it is misleading. 3. It is evident on a reading of the answers to the relevant questions that in every case there are five options and wherever, “answer not known” figures, it is always the last option. It is possible, as the petitioner suggests, for “answer not known” to imply that the candidate is not aware of the answer and it may not imply “none of the above”. 4. However, since the relevant option is uniform and all candidates have taken the same examination, there is no particular prejudice that the petitioner would have suffered or that any individual candidate would have suffered which is different from what others may have also experienced. 5. In any event, the respondent authorities should take a uniform stand, if not already taken, as to whether or not to allot any marks to any answer where the option exercised is in favour of “answer not known”. 6. There does not appear to be any great prejudice caused to the petitioner or anybody else in how the questions or the answers therefore were worded. 7. In view of the above, WP No.21299 of 2021 is disposed of without interfering with the matters complained of. The respondent authorities will, however, mark if the answer given there is “answer not known” in a uniform manner. 8. There will be no order as to costs. W.M.P.Nos.22539, 22541 and 22543 of 2021 are closed.