- (1.) The petitioner complains that three questions, two in physics and one in mathematics have been answered wrongly by the Board in the Model Key Answers (MKA).
(2.) Learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has disclosed sufficient materials in support of its authenticities. He refers to few books and submits that such books are followed by students in preparing for the relevant examination. Learned advocate for the petitioner identifies question numbers 12 and 39 in physics and question no. 72 in mathematics as questions in respect of which wrong answers have been given by the Board.
(3.) Learned advocate for the Board raises an objection with regard to the jurisdiction of the Court to entertain the writ petition. He submits that, disputed question of facts are involved and that a writ court should not enter into an inquiry with regard to the correctness of a MKA, particularly, when such MKA cannot be demonstrated to be palpably wrong. In support of such contention he relies upon a decision (University of Calcutta Vs. Anindya Kumar Das,1992 2 CalLJ 339). He submits that, the petitioner should be requested to avail of his remedies other than a writ proceedings for redressal of his grievance.;