TATIA, J. - (1.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties.
(2.) THE grievance of the petitioners is that the paper setters have committee errors while giving correct answers to the questions set by them and therefore, they supplied wrong answers in the "key answer" supplied for evolution of the marks of the students, who appeared in Pre-Medical and Pre-Veterinary Examinations held in Rajasthan. According to the petitioners answers of 16 questions are wrong in `key answer. ' THE one answer consists of three marks and on giving wrong answer by the student, he gets one negative mark for each wrong answer. THErefore, in present test, a student who gave in fact, right answer, but that answer was treated as wrong answer because it is not as per the answers given in `key answer' supplied to the University by the paper setter. According to learned counsels for the petitioners thereby in case, when a student even when gave right answer for one question still he is deprived from four marks for one question. In total for 16 questions, he looses 64 marks. It is also submitted that in view of the tight competition, as about more than 30,000 students have appeared for this examination, wrong marking for one question may put a student below in rank to number of students and thereby that student may not get the admission in the MBBS or Veterinary Courses and may also not get the college of his choice and at the place of his choice. Not only this, but in fact large number of meritorious students will be deprived from the admission in MBBS or Veterinary Courses. According to learned counsels for the petitioners future of each and every student is not only important, but in case, he will be deprived from admission in such a technical course, it will cause trauma for life for the student and that frustration cannot be cured by any means and that frustration will be for whole of the life of the student. Learned counsels for the petitioners further submit that since the pattern of examination is "multiple choice objective type test" therefore, there is exactness in the answer to each question. The entire process of evolution of the answer book is through latest technology as the answer books are examined by the computer and not manually. According to learned counsels for the petitioners the entire process of checking of the answer sheets can be computed within a period of maximum a day only. Since the examinations are "multiple choice objective type test", therefore, there arises no question of ambiguity and it can be easily found out whether the answer given in the `key answer' are correct or not as well as this also can be found out easily that whether the answers suggested by the petitioners to particular question are correct or not. Learned counsels for the petitioners submitted that the courts have interfered at least in four cases, which have come to the notice of the learned counsels for the petitioners and these four cases are, (i) Kanpur University & Ors. vs. Samir Gupta & Ors. (AIR 1983 SC 1230), (ii) Abhijit Sen & Ors. vs. State of UP & Ors. (AIR 1984 SC 1402), (iii) Convernor, MBBS/bds Selection Board & Ors. vs. Chandan Mishra & Ors. (1995 Supp (3) SCC 77) and (iv) State of Orrisa & Ors. vs. Prajnaparamita Samanta & Ors. (1996 (7) SCC 106 ). It will also be relevant to mention here that this matter was placed before this Court on 8. 07. 2005 and after hearing the learned counsel for the parties and after noting the arguments of learned counsels for the petitioners that even a single mark will affect a student because by a single mark, one can move up and down by 25 numbers in merit and since there are allegations that the petitioners' 16 answers have been wrongly taken to be incorrect answers by wrongly accepting the wrong answers as correct, therefore, the petitioners may have to suffer a lot and since Hon'ble the Apex Court held that educational standards are required to be maintained with full strictness and no ineligible candidate should get admission in the course depriving the eligible candidates from admission and since according to the petitioners, the answer to the question are exact one and will not require any detail inquiry and shall not have different opinion about correctness of the answer, therefore, this Court observed as under:- " It is true that this is quite technical matter where only experts can decide about correctness of answer. This is also an issue that a question may have two answers but prima-facie, this Court is of the opinion that the questions cannot have two totally opposite answers correct. Since in this case, it has been alleged that the answers to the questions are like mathematical equations and according to learned counsel for the respondents No. 1 and 2, that is not so, then this aspect can also be considered by only expert. " It was pointed by learned counsels for the petitioners that in identical circumstances in writ petition No. 606/2005, the matter was referred to the expert body for opinion. Therefore, this Court referred 16 questions for which according to learned counsels for the petitioners answers in the "key answer" are incorrect to the Head of the Department of the respective subjects of the Jodhpur University and the Udaipur University with request to submit report for the questions, namely; (i) Whether the answers suggested by the petitioners of the question is correct or the answer given in the answer key issued by the respondent University are correct. (ii) The experts may also point out if there is possibility of two answers for one question suggesting the answer of the petitioner as well as the respondent University correct. (iii) The experts may also submit if both the answers are not correct. (iv) The experts may also point out that there is possibility of one answer more correct and other answer less correct. The report has been submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General and as per the report, out of four questions answer for one question for Physics paper has been found to be incorrect by both the experts. For Chemistry paper, out of four questions, answer of two questions given in "key answer" were found to be incorrect by both the experts and for Biology paper out of eight questions, answers for three questions were found to be wrong in the "key answer" by experts. Thereby there are six answers wrong in the "key answer" in the opinion of the experts from the two Universities, out of sixteen questioned questions. Again it will be worthwhile to mention here that in Physics paper, question at S. No. 1, according to expert from Jodhpur University, there is possibility of two answers. `a' and `b', whereas as per expert from the Udaipur University the correct answer is `b', as given in the "key answer". The answer of question at S. No. 2 was found to be correct by both the experts. The answer at S. No. 3 was found wrong by both the experts whereas for question at S. No. 4, one expert's opinion is that answer given in the "key answer" is correct, other says that, that is not correct. The different opinions have been given by the experts for the two answers of the subject-Chemistry; one supporting the answer in key answer as correct and other contradicting it. For Biology paper, 8 questions were referred to the experts, three were found to be wrong in the key answer key and for remaining five, for two, the experts have contradictory opinions, one supporting the key answer as correct where other supporting the key answer as wrong.
(3.) LEARNED Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents No. 1 and 2 vehemently submitted that the writ petitions of the petitioners are not maintainable, firstly because of the fact that writ petitions which have been filed jointly are not maintainable as each student has his own grievance and he cannot join the issue when his own stand is not supported by co- petitioner. It is also submitted that when one of the students says that correctness of the answer of one question is not in dispute then the student joining with him cannot say that answer of that question is wrong. It is also submitted by the learned Addl. Advocate General that there were 300 questions for all the three papers (100 questions for each paper ). Out of 300 questions, the petitioners by their best effort could find out only 16 questions of which according to them answers given in the "key answer" are wrong and now in view of the experts opinion it is clear that the contentions of learned counsels for the petitioners is wrong and only answers of six questions have been opined by the experts to be wrong. It is also submitted that the experts' opinion clearly reveal that they too are not in agreement for giving answers to the questions, therefore, in such circumstance, it will not be just and proper for this Court to accept the experts report even for six questions for the purpose of discarding the answers given by the paper setter for the questions in the "key answer" because the paper setter also is an expert and his opinion can be said to be a first opinion of an expert for the answers given for the questions by him in the key answer. It was further submitted that the petitioners have projected their grievances out of proportion because of the simple reason that each and every student will not be benefited if the answer given by these experts in pursuance of the order of this Court is accepted and as correct and their marks are evaluated according to the answers given by the experts of the Jodhpur University and Udaipur University. According to Addl. Advocate General, not only this but even if the answers books of the petitioners are re-evaluated in accordance with the answers given by the experts from Udaipur University and Jodhpur University even then in one subject about 98% of the students will get the benefit of increase of four marks and by that there will be no change in the merit as all will get four marks. It is also submitted that the petitioners failed to disclose that total number of seats are 486 for the MBBS Course out of which 363 seats are for boys and 123 seats are for girls students. These seats of boys and girls are also distributed amongst the students of General category, Scheduled Caste, Scheduled Tribe, OBC and others. Therefore, there is less possibility of change in position of any of the students even if the answer books are re- evaluated. It is also submitted that the petitioners though submitted that they may be put to an disadvantageous position, but that appears to be only imaginary and there is likelihood that even not 50% or more substantial number of students will get the admission in the Course of their choice in counseling. It is also submitted that the placement of a student in a particular college cannot be equated with total denial of the admission to the students and looking to the larger interest of completion of the process of the admission in time, if one or two persons or some of the students may have to suffer some inconvenience then that cannot be a ground for re-evaluation of all the copies of all the students as prayed by the petitioners in their writ petitions. It is also submitted that the persons who are in merits above the petitioners, neither have been impleaded as party nor some of them as representatives, have been impleaded as party in the writ petitions. Therefore, in case any order will be passed by this Court for re-evaluation of all the answer books or only of the students who are in merit then that will be an order against those persons whose merit is likely to be effected by the order of this Court. The learned Addl. Advocate General further submitted that when there is no procedure for questioning the questions of the answers set out in the key answer then the procedure may not be framed by the order of the Court for application to the admission for the course of Medical and Veterinary subjects as it may become precedent for all years. For this learned Addl. Advocate General relied upon the judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court delivered in the case of Promod Kumar Srivastava vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors. (2004 (6) SCC 714 ). I considered by the submissions of learned counsels for the parties and perused the experts' opinion as well as the judgments cited by both the learned counsels for the parties. ;