JUDGMENT : Shaji P. Chaly, J. The appeal is preferred by the first respondent in W.P.(C) No. 20982 of 2019 challenging the judgment of the learned single Judge dated 19.11.2019, whereby the learned single Judge directed the appellant to revise the marks of the writ petitioners in the UGC National Eligibility Test (NET) held in June, 2019 against the question ID No. 64635010128 holding that none of the options given in the answer key to the question are correct. 2. Brief material facts for the disposal of the appeal are as follows: Writ petitioners are post graduates in History and also possessing M. Phil. They appeared for the test for acquiring qualification as Assistant Professor; and the 2nd writ petitioner for the post of Junior Research Fellow also. Before the publication of the results of the Test, when the answer key of the Test was published by the appellant, the writ petitioners challenged the correctness of the answers in respect of question ID 64635010128 and ID 64635010156. However, the challenge was not accepted and the final answer key was published on 09.07.2019. The results of the examinations were published on 13th June, 2019. The first petitioner secured 54% marks; whereas the cut off marks for the eligibility of Assistant Professor was 54.67% for the unreserved category to which the first petitioner belongs. The second petitioner falling within the OBC (NCL Category), secured 57.33%; whereas, the cut off marks for Junior Research Fellow and Assistant Professor is 58% and for Assistant Professor 50%, insofar as OBC (NCL) candidates are concerned. Therefore, according to the second writ petitioner, he has become qualified only for the post of Assistant Professor. According to the 1st writ petitioner, if the challenge to the answers to the two questions were accepted and resultantly removed from the question papers, she would have got 4 marks additionally, and thus qualified for the post of Assistant Professor, and insofar as the second petitioner is concerned, 4 marks would have made him qualified for the post of Junior Research Fellow also, by scoring 58.67%. 3. The case of the petitioners is that since challenge to the answer key was not responded to, they have no other option except to challenge the action of the appellant by filing the writ petition. 3. The case of the petitioners is that since challenge to the answer key was not responded to, they have no other option except to challenge the action of the appellant by filing the writ petition. However, the learned single Judge found that even though the answer key of two questions were challenged before the authority, only the challenge in question ID No. 64635010128 was within the timeline provided in the brochure, and therefore the issue with respect to the said answer key alone was considered and attained finality. 4. The appellant has filed a statement before the learned single Judge basically contending that the test was conducted by the appellant between 20.06.2019 and 26.06.2019 across the nation and the writ petitioners had appeared in the test on 20.06.2019. It is also the case of the appellant that as per the Information Bulletin of UGCNET, 2019, the answer key of the question is displayed on the website of NTA for two or three days before the publication of the result, thus providing an opportunity for challenge, making a payment of Rs.1000 as processing charges; and it is provided in clause 12.1 of the Information Bulletin that the decision of the appellant on the challenge shall be final, and the result will be declared on the basis of the final answer keys; that the final answer keys were uploaded on the NTANET website, www.ntanet.nic.in on 12.07.2019; that the final answer keys are decided by the experts after giving due consideration of the challenges by the subject experts; and that the results published by the appellant are based on the decision of the subject experts. 5. It was further contended that the writ petitioners themselves had admitted the expertise of the second respondent in paragraph 3 of the writ petition and has stated that the National Testing Agency is entrusted to address all such issues using best in every field, from the test preparation, to the test delivery and to test marking. In paragraph 2 also, it is admitted by the writ petitioners that the appellant has been established as a premier, specialist, autonomous and self-sustained testing organisation to conduct Entrance Examination for Admission/Fellowship in Higher Educational Institutions. The appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. In paragraph 2 also, it is admitted by the writ petitioners that the appellant has been established as a premier, specialist, autonomous and self-sustained testing organisation to conduct Entrance Examination for Admission/Fellowship in Higher Educational Institutions. The appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Ors. v. State of U. P. and Ors [ AIR 2018 SC 52 ], wherein it was held that the court should not at all revalidate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate; and it has no expertise in academic matters and better to leave such aspects to the academicians. The appellant has also relied upon the judgment of the Apex Court in UPPSE v. Rahul Singh and another [ AIR 2018 SC 2861 ], wherein it was held that when there are conflicting views, then the court must go down to the opinion of the experts, and Judges are not and cannot be experts in all fields, and therefore they must exercise great restraint, and should not overstep their jurisdiction to upset opinion of experts. 6. The sum and substance of the contention advanced was that the law is clear that the expert opinion must be given higher weightage than the opinion of one or two candidates who participated in the examination. That apart, it was contended that the writ petitioners have not challenged one of the questions within the time frame fixed and the challenge was made for the first time in respect of the said question only in the writ petition. 7. It was also contended that the NET examination is conducted every three months and the final results of the same are being published in less than one month, and that a large number of experts and officials are behind the process to ensure that the same is done efficiently and effectively. 8. The learned single Judge considered the correctness of the following question ID 6463501028 and the answer options given in the question paper, and they read thus: In 1579, 'Mahazar' was drafted by which of the following scholars? Option No. Option ID Option Description 1. 64635039867 Abul Fazl and Sheikh Mubarak 2. 64635039868 Sheikh Mubarak and Abdun Nabi 3. 64635039869 Abdun Nabi and Badauni 4. 64635039870 Sheikh Mubarak and Faizi 9. Option No. Option ID Option Description 1. 64635039867 Abul Fazl and Sheikh Mubarak 2. 64635039868 Sheikh Mubarak and Abdun Nabi 3. 64635039869 Abdun Nabi and Badauni 4. 64635039870 Sheikh Mubarak and Faizi 9. The basic contention advanced by the petitioners in the writ petition is that Mahazar is the document that made Emperor Akbar the sole Judge of political and religious matters during his reign and the same was drafted by Sheikh Mubarak, a scholar who lived during the period of Akbar. The answer key for the question published by the appellant provided that the same was drafted by Sheikh Mubarak along with his son Abul Fazl as per provided in option ‘1’ . However, the case of the writ petitioners in the writ petition is that the authorities cited by the writ petitioners would make it clear that all the options in the answer key are palpably wrong. They have relied upon Exts. P3 to P14 texts to canvass the proposition that all the options extracted above are wrong. The learned single Judge extracted the relevant portions of 7 texts produced by the petitioners in the writ petition and arrived at the conclusion that, from the passages of the authorities extracted in the Judgment it is clear and unambiguous, that the draft of the document was written by Sheikh Mubarak in his own handwriting; that in the statement filed by the appellant, it has no case that the authorities furnished by the writ petitioners are not the authorities governing the field; that the appellant has also not made available any authority which casts a semblance of doubt as to the correctness of the contents of the authorities produced by the writ petitioners and therefore, it was held that the appellant ought to have accepted the challenge made by the writ petitioners to the question aforesaid and deleted the same from the question paper. 10. However, while holding so, the learned single Judge took note of the contention of the appellant placing reliance on Ext. P9 produced by the writ petitioners “that even though the final draft of the document was prepared by Sheikh Mubarak, his son Abul Fazl also has contributed for the preparation and therefore, the answer key published by the appellant is correct”. P9 produced by the writ petitioners “that even though the final draft of the document was prepared by Sheikh Mubarak, his son Abul Fazl also has contributed for the preparation and therefore, the answer key published by the appellant is correct”. However, the learned single Judge disagreed with the same by holding that “ the question is not as to the persons who have contributed to the preparation of the document, but as to who drafted the document”, and further held that going by Ext. P9, it is categoric that the document was drafted by Sheikh Mubarak. 11. Even though the learned single Judge has taken note of the judgment of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and Uttar Pradesh Public Service Commission through its Chairman and Another v. Rahul Singh and another [ (2018) 7 SCC 254 ] relied upon by the appellant, it was held that the decision of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh was the one rendered after considering the decision of a three Judge Bench of the Apex Court in Kanpur University, and others v. Samir Gupta and others ( AIR 1983 SC 1230 ) and therefore, as such the two decisions cited by the appellant cannot be understood as laying down a proposition contrary to the principle laid down in Samir Gupta that if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the student for not giving an answer in accordance with the answer key which is demonstrated to be wrong. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appeal is preferred. 12. It is, thus, challenging the legality and correctness of the judgment of the learned single Judge, the appeal is preferred. 12. The paramount contentions advanced by the appellant in the appeal are that as per the Information Bulletin of UGC—NET June, 2019, the answer keys of the questions are displayed on the website for two to three days and during the said period, candidates are given an opportunity to challenge the answer by making a payment of Rs.1000/- as processing charge; that in clause 12.1 of the Information Bulletin, it is clearly specified that the NTA decision on the challenges shall be final and the result will be declared on the basis of final answer keys; that the question papers and the responses attempted thereon by each candidate of UGC NET June 2019 were displayed to the candidates through the website and a public notice was also issued through the website on 29.06.2019 for their information; that the facility for challenge to the provisional answer keys was available to all the candidates, including the writ petitioners, from 01.07.2019 to 03.07.2019 and public notice was issued on 01.07.2019 for information of the candidates; that the challenges received from the candidates were placed before the concerned subject experts for verification; and that the final answer keys were decided after giving due consideration to the challenges by the respective subject experts and were uploaded on the NTA NET website on 12.07.2019 and therefore, the results published by the appellant are based on the decision of subject experts. 13. It is also submitted that all the objections including the one preferred by the writ petitioners were considered by the subject experts of the NTA and upon examining the objections to the Answer Key of the Question ID No. 64635010128, the subject experts of NTA did not find any merit in the objections filed by the writ petitioners; that subject experts had relied on Professor S.Nurul Hussan’s reference in the book 'Religion State and Society in Medieval India', which is an Oxford Indian paperback publication. It is also pointed out that the subject experts ie. Prof.Sunita Zaidi, Professor (Retd.) Department of History Jamia Millia Islamia University, Delhi, Prof.Abha Singh, Professor of History, School of Social Sciences, Indira Gandhi National Open University and Prof. Inayath Zadi, Professor (Retd.) Department of History Jamia Millia Islamia University, Delhi, had given expert opinion. It is also pointed out that the subject experts ie. Prof.Sunita Zaidi, Professor (Retd.) Department of History Jamia Millia Islamia University, Delhi, Prof.Abha Singh, Professor of History, School of Social Sciences, Indira Gandhi National Open University and Prof. Inayath Zadi, Professor (Retd.) Department of History Jamia Millia Islamia University, Delhi, had given expert opinion. The expert opinion of the subject experts and the option description read thus: Name of the examination: UGC- NET June 2019. Question Number : 93 Question ID: 64635010128 Question Type: MCQ In 1579, Mahzar was drafted by which of the following scholars? Option No. Option ID Option Description 1. 64635039867 Abul Fazl and Sheikh Mubarak 2. 64635039868 Sheikh Mubarak and Abdun Nabi 3. 64635039869 Abdun Nabi and Badauni 4. 64635039870 Sheikh Mubarak and Faizi 14. The appellant has also extracted certain passages from some authoritative texts in its statement, which read thus: “Chapter 23 titled ‘Abu’l Fadl’ of the book ‘Religion, State and Society in medieval India’, Pages 292-293 the following excerpts are extracted for reference. Abu’l Fadl [H.A.R. Gibbs & others, Encyclopaedia of Islam, Vol.I, New edition, eds. E.J. Brill, Leiden, 1979, pp.117-18] Abu’l Fadl(Fazl) ‘Allami (Shaykh), author, liberal thinker and informal secretary of the emperor Akbar, was the younger brother of the poet Faydi and the second son of Shaykh Mubarak Nagawri (d.1593), one of the most distinguished scholars of his age in India, and the author of a commentary on the Kur’an, Mamba ‘I Nafa’ is al-‘Uyan. He was born on 6 Muharram 958/14 January 1551 at Agra, where his father had settled, in 1543, as a teacher. Abu’l Fadl was a pupil of his father, and owed his profound scholarship and liberality of outlook largely to the training given him by the latter. By his fifteenth year he had studied religious sciences, Greek thought and mysticism; but formal education did not satisfy the yearnings of his soul nor did the orthodox faith bring him spiritual solace. While studying in his father’s school, he spent his time in extensive reading, deep meditation, and frequent discussions of religious questions. Abu’l Fadl was presented at the court by his brother, Faydi, in 1574. He soon gained high favour with Akbar by his scholarly criticism of the narrow-mindedness of the ‘ulama’ in the religious discussions which were started in the ‘Ibadat Khana in 1575. Abu’l Fadl was presented at the court by his brother, Faydi, in 1574. He soon gained high favour with Akbar by his scholarly criticism of the narrow-mindedness of the ‘ulama’ in the religious discussions which were started in the ‘Ibadat Khana in 1575. He helped in freeing the emperor from the domination of the ‘Ulama’ and was instrumental in bringing about their ultimate political downfall by the promulgation, in 1579, of the decree (mahdar), drafted by him in collaboration with his father, Abu’l Fadl 293 Which invested Akbar with the authority of deciding points of difference between the theologians. A firm believer in God, whom he regarded as transcendental and the Creator, Abu’l-Fadl considered that there could be no relationship between man and God except that of servitude (‘abdullahi’) on the part of the former. Servitude required sincerity, suppression of the ego (nafs), and devotion to Him, resignation to His will, and faith in His Mercifulness. Though he regarded formal worship as mere hypocrisy, he believed that there were many ways of serving the Lord, but only divine blessing could reveal the Truth. ‘In the main’, he wrote, ‘every sect may be placed in one of two categories- either, it is in possession of the Truth, in which case one should seek direction from it; or, it is in the wrong, in which it is an object of pity and deserving of sympathy, not of reproach’ (akbar Nama,ii,660) his faith in being at ‘Peace with all’ (sulh-i-kull) involved not only toleration of all religions but also love for all human beings. 15. It is further submitted that even though the appellant filed a statement in the writ petition taking a specific contention that the final answer keys were decided by the experts giving due consideration of the challenges made to the answer keys by the respective subject experts and therefore it is settled law that, it is for the experts/academic bodies and not for the courts to go into the correctness of the answers contained in the answer key, as experts are the best judges of the subject/academic issue and these matters should be left to academic bodies, the learned Single Judge disagreed with the same without assigning proper reasons. Therefore, it is contended that the findings rendered by the learned single Judge without taking into account the intrinsic aspects in regard to the realm of interference in academic matters is only erroneous and contrary to the settled principles of law. 16. Along with the additional statement filed by the appellant in the appeal, as directed by us, copies of the applications submitted by the writ petitioners, Annexure A1 public notice dated 01.07.2019, Annexure A2 sample page on the Web portal maintained by the appellant for challenges regarding answer key, Annexures A3 and A4, relevant pages of the answer sheets generated online and the challenge made by the first writ petitioner together with the documents uploaded by the first respondent; Annexures A5 and A6, answer sheets of the 2nd petitioner generated online and the documents uploaded in support of the claim, are also filed. 17. It is pointed out that Annexures A4 and A6 challenges made by the writ petitioners are similar, and the reference cited in both the cases were also same, and according to them, both sons of Sheikh Mubark equally participated in drafting the Mahzar. So, option ID 64635039870 is also right’ and the reference cited and uploaded in both cases was, The Ain I Akbari, Volume 1 by Henry Blochmann, Henry Sullivan Jarrett( Abu-al-fazl ibn Mubarak) Page No.XIV Printed by GH Rouse, at the Baptist Mission press,1873. The extracted paragraph which was uploaded as PDF read as given below:- “but it was too late. They even signed the remarkable document which Shaik Mubarak in conjunction with his sons had drafted, a document which I believe stands unique in the whole Church History of Islam. Badaoni has happily preserved a complete copy of it. The emperor was certified to be a just ruler, and was as such assigned the rank of a ‘Mujtahid’, i.e. an infallible authority in all matters relating to Islam. The ‘intellect of the just king’ thus became the only source of legislation, and the whole body of the learned and the lawyers bound themselves to abide by Akbar’s decrees in religious matters. Shaikh ‘abdunnabi and Makhdum ul.” 18. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention is that the writ petitioners maintained that both sons of Sheikh Mubark equally participated in drafting the Mahzar and it was accordingly decided that the option ID 64635039870 is also right. Shaikh ‘abdunnabi and Makhdum ul.” 18. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention is that the writ petitioners maintained that both sons of Sheikh Mubark equally participated in drafting the Mahzar and it was accordingly decided that the option ID 64635039870 is also right. The paramount contention advanced by the appellant based on the same is that the writ petitioners had produced only the aforesaid material for substantiating their claim when they challenged the answer keys in contemplation of the Information Bulletin; however, in stark contradiction to their initial challenges to the answer keys, the writ petitioners have taken a totally different stand in the writ petition by contending that Sheikh Mubark alone drafted ‘Mahzar’. In order to understand the said situation, the contention raised in Paragraph 8 of the writ petition is extracted hereunder: “both the petitioners challenged the answer key by pointing out authorities that the official answer key is wrong. According to the petitioners Sheikh Mubarak was a scholar who lived during Akbar’s period. Abul Fazl and Abul Faizi were his sons. Akbar was deeply influenced by these three persons. The Mahazar/Infallibility Decree of 1579 made Akbar the sole judge of Political and Religious Authority which was drafted by Sheikh Mubarak.” 19. In paragraph 9 of the of the writ petition, it is further stated thus: 9. “All these authorities would say that the ‘Mahazar’ was drafted by Sheikh Mubarak alone. But all the 4 options given as answers were wrong. In two options (A &D), Sheik Mubarak was joined with two of his sons. Hence the authorities on this issue would suggest that all the answers were infact wrong. Hence both petitioner challenged the correctness of the answers but the NTA seems to have not accepted the challenge.” 20. Therefore, the contention advanced is that the writ petitioners relied upon various other texts produced as Exts.P3 to P9, which originally were not uploaded in the web portal maintained by the appellant at the time of challenge, and thus at all relevant times, writ petitioners maintained a stand before the appellant that the option ID 64635039870 which was the 4th option chosen by the writ petitioners was the correct answer. 21. 21. To put it short, the paramount contention advanced by the appellant is that the writ petitioners have raised a new contention, different from the one made in the challenges to the answer key options provided by the appellant, is not permissible under law, since the writ petitioners have absolutely deviated from the basic challenge made to the answer key options in terms of the provisions of the Information Bulletin published by the appellant. 22. To the statement filed by the appellant, the writ petitioners have filed a reply statement refuting the contentions raised therein. However, it is admitted that the statement made by the appellant that writ petitioners challenged the answer key to question ID No.64635010128 stating that apart from option A, option D, is also correct is, in fact, a true statement; that the objections against the answer key was called for on 01.07.2019 to be uploaded with a single supporting authority before 03.07.2019; that the appellant did not grant sufficient time for cross checking the answers with the authorities in the short span of time; that the writ petitioners did not get any reply from the appellant on the said challenge; that the writ petitioners were under the impression that as per the authority uploaded along with the challenge, both options A & D were the correct answers; that the writ petitioners were forced to choose one among the options and they chose option D, but unfortunately, published Option A as the final answer. 23. It is further contended that even though an application under the Right to Information Act was filed before the appellant seeking to inform the names of subject experts, it was not provided by the appellant and therefore, the writ petitioners really suspect the quality and the calibre of the subject experts appointed by the appellant so as to deal with the challenge to the answer keys. Therefore, it is submitted that the appellant has not made out any case for interference with the judgment of the learned single Judge. 24. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Nirmal. S. and the learned counsel appeared for the writ petitioners, Sri. S. Sanal Kumar, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 25. The prime question that emerges for consideration is whether any manner of interference is required to the judgment of the learned single Judge. 24. We have heard the learned counsel for the appellant Sri.Nirmal. S. and the learned counsel appeared for the writ petitioners, Sri. S. Sanal Kumar, and perused the pleadings and materials on record. 25. The prime question that emerges for consideration is whether any manner of interference is required to the judgment of the learned single Judge. In fact, the discussion of facts made above would make it clear that the challenge made by the writ petitioners in regard to the answer key under dispute was that option No.4 is also a correct answer apart from the option which provided that the document ‘mahazar’ was drafted by Sheikh Mubarak along with his sons, Abul Fazl and Abul Faizi, and the reason assigned for making the challenge in that manner is that, the writ petitioners did not have sufficient time to search for and upload the necessary authoritative texts as that of the ones produced along with the writ petition in order to substantiate their claim that all the options in the answer key are wrong. 26. It is equally significant to note that in the writ petition, the challenge made to the answer options is entirely different, since the writ petitioners specifically contended that none of the options in the answer key are correct. Anyhow, even though the writ petitioners have challenged the whereabouts and calibre of the subject experts, in the appeal memorandum at paragraph 7, the names and details of the subject experts, who have considered the challenges made by the candidates in the examination is specified and therefore, the contention that the said information was not furnished to the writ petitioners against the application submitted under the Right to Information Act has no much force. 27. Added to that, the writ petitioners have not raised any challenge in the reply statement filed in the appeal as regards the details of the subject experts furnished in the appeal memorandum. Further, the application under the RTI Act, in our considered view, was filed by the writ petitioners during the pendency of the appeal, as an afterthought, presumably to tide over the contentions advanced in the appeal. Further, the application under the RTI Act, in our considered view, was filed by the writ petitioners during the pendency of the appeal, as an afterthought, presumably to tide over the contentions advanced in the appeal. Therefore, the issue to be decided scales down to a question as to whether the writ petitioners are entitled to make a different challenge in the writ petition than that the one challenged before the statutory authority in contemplation of the Information Bulletin, which was the rule of game for the conduct of the examination. In our considered opinion, it is an emphatic “NO”. 28. We say so because, going by the provisions of the Information Bulletin discussed above, it is clear that there is a clear cut procedure prescribed in order to challenge the answer keys. It is true, the writ petitioners have challenged the answer key under dispute, and a decision was taken by the subject experts and uploaded the same in public domain, which is a method clearly prescribed under the Information Bulletin. It is also equally important to note that the writ petitioners have produced Ext. P15 final answer key published on 12.07.2019. Therefore, the contention advanced by the writ petitioners in the writ petition that no reply was given, cannot be sustained under law, since the procedure to be followed. 29. It is well settled that when a brochure is published with regard to the procedure in the matter of conduct of the examination and the procedure to be adopted to make a challenge to the answer key, that is the rule to be followed by all, including the candidates participating in the examination. It is also relevant and important to note that when challenge was made to the answer key, the writ petitioners have not provided any of the authoritative texts produced along with the writ petition to the subject experts, which is a requirement to justify the challenge in order to substantiate their contention that none of the options in the answer key are correct. It is an admitted fact that the sole text produced by the writ petitioners was to make an attempt to establish that both options 1 and 4 in the answer key are correct. It is an admitted fact that the sole text produced by the writ petitioners was to make an attempt to establish that both options 1 and 4 in the answer key are correct. However, in order to get over the folly committed, the writ petitioners have raised a contention in the writ petition that they did not have sufficient time to make the challenge appropriately before the subject experts, which, in our view, may not have much bearing and thrust, for the basic reason that all candidates who made challenge were equally situated and no manner of discrimination was employed against the writ petitioners alone. 30. Anyhow, in the writ petition, writ petitioners have taken a totally contrary and different stand to the challenge made by them before the competent authority that options 1 and 4 given in the answer key are correct. In this context, it is relevant to take into consideration the judgment of the Apex Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held under similar circumstances that, sympathy or compassion do not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of answer sheet and if an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers; that the entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer, and that all candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more, but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is always not possible. 31. Similarly in Rahul Singh (supra), the Apex Court considered substantially a similar issue and held that since the answer keys are moderated by two expert committees and thereafter, objections are invited and a Twenty Six Member Committee was constituted to verify the objections, the Judges cannot take on the role of experts in academic matters; that unless the candidates demonstrate that the answer keys are patently wrong on the face of it, the courts cannot enter into the academic matters and the pros and cons of the arguments advanced by both sides and come to the conclusion as to which of the answers is better or more correct. However, the learned single Judge has relied upon the judgment of a Three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in Kanpur University and Others v. Sameer Gupta and others [ AIR 1983 SC 1230 ] to grant the reliefs sought for in the writ petition. 32. In our considered opinion, the issue that was considered in the judgment in Samir Gupta was whether the Hindi version of question No.24 therein was correct or not. This is quite clear from the discussion made at paragraphs 6 to 8 of the judgment and they read thus: “6. Question 24 of the Chemistry paper reads thus: 24. The theory of electrolytic dissociation was given by— 1. Faraday 2. Kohlrausch 3. Arrehenius 4. Ostwald. Each question in each paper is set both in English and Hindi, not one below the other but, there are two question papers for each subject, one of which is set in English and the other in Hindi. We do not know which is the original version and which is the translation but it is common ground that one is the translation of the other. 7. The Hindi version of Question 24, as transliterated, reads thus: 24. Vidyut apaghatan ka sidhant kis vegyanik ne diya tha? 1. Faraday 2. Kohlrausch 3. Arrehenius 4. Ostwald. 8. The contention of the University, which accords with the key answer, is that the third alternative furnishes the correct answer, namely, ‘Arrehenius’, whether the question is read in English or in Hindi. There is no dispute that Option 3 is the correct answer to the question set in English, that is to say, that the theory of electrolytic dissociation was given by Arrehenius. The contention of the students, who are apparently very clever, is that the correct answer to the Hindi version of the question is ‘Faraday’, which is the first alternative. Their argument is that the English Question 24 and Hindi Question 24 do not carry the same sense and one is not the exact translation of the other. According to these well-taught students, “electrolytic” means “vidyut apaghatan”, whereas “electrolytic dissociation” means ‘vidyut apaghataniya viyojan’; and in the Hindi version of the question, the word ‘dissociation’ does not find its equivalent.” 33. It was accordingly that findings were rendered at paragraph 15, which reads thus: “15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of great importance to the student community. It was accordingly that findings were rendered at paragraph 15, which reads thus: “15. The findings of the High Court raise a question of great importance to the student community. Normally, one would be inclined to the view, especially if one has been a paper-setter and an examiner, that the key answer furnished by the paper-setter and accepted by the University as correct, should not be allowed to be challenged. One way of achieving it is not to publish the key answer at all. If the University had not published the key answer along with the result of the Test, no controversy would have arisen in this case. But that is not a correct way of looking at these matters which involve the future of hundreds of students who are aspirants for admission to professional courses. If the key answer were kept secret in this case, the remedy would have been worse than the disease because so many students would have had to suffer the injustice in silence. The publication of the key answer has unravelled an unhappy state of affairs to which the University and the State Government must find a solution. Their sense of fairness in publishing the key answer has given them an opportunity to have a closer look at the system of examinations which they conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the human system." 34. Therefore, even though certain propositions are laid down by the Apex Court in Samir Gupta, it was basically taking into account the facts and circumstances involved in that case, which is quite clear and evident from the expressions employed therein. However it is significant to note that the judgment in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) was rendered by the Honourable Apex Court taking note of the judgment in Samir Gupta and the propositions were laid down with regard to the realm of interference in the answer keys after distinguishing the facts and circumstances involved in the said cases. However it is significant to note that the judgment in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) was rendered by the Honourable Apex Court taking note of the judgment in Samir Gupta and the propositions were laid down with regard to the realm of interference in the answer keys after distinguishing the facts and circumstances involved in the said cases. We also had occasion to consider a similar question in W.A. No.1592 of 2021 and as per the judgment dated 23rd December, 2021, taking into account the decision rendered by the Apex Court in Samir Gupta, Ran Vijay Singh and Rahul Singh, held that when a clear cut procedure is prescribed in the brochure published by the authority in regard to the challenge of the answer key i.e., the guiding principles and the rules to be followed strictly in order to ensure that no disruption is occurring to the examination conducted and the result published. It is clear from the documents produced by the appellants along with the statement in the writ appeal, which, in our considered opinion, was produced to substantiate the basic contention made in the statement filed in the writ petition, that the subject experts declined the challenge made by the writ petitioners by relying upon the authoritative texts. 35. Therefore, even if there is any doubt with respect to the authoritativeness of the options in the answer key, that should go in favour of the appellant. This we say because the examination is conducted on an All India basis and therefore, if any interference is made in the examination process without being found it abhorrent, it will upset and topple the results published by the appellant, thus derailing the process and making complex situations. Moreover, we are of the clear opinion that the question under dispute was framed relying upon the authoritative texts and it is clear from those texts that the coded correct answer contained under option No.1 of the answer key in question cannot be said to be absolutely perverse or wrong so as to justify interference in a writ petition. 36. Considering the aforementioned legal and factual aspects, we are undoubtedly of the opinion that the judgment of the learned single Judge requires interference. Therefore, we set aside the judgment of the learned single Judge, and consequently the writ petition would stand dismissed. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed.