Holding

A key‑answer is presumed correct but may be set aside if it is demonstrably wrong; here the key‑answers were proved wrong, so the students were entitled to the additional marks and admission.

Summary

The Kanpur University conducted the 1982 Combined Pre‑Medical Test using a multiple‑choice objective format and published the key‑answers along with the results. Several candidates claimed that the key‑answers for three questions (in Chemistry, Zoology and Botany) were incorrect, causing them to be denied admission to MBBS courses. The Allahabad High Court accepted their claim and ordered the university to reassess the papers and grant the additional marks. On appeal, the Supreme Court held that a key‑answer is presumed correct but may be challenged if it can be clearly shown to be wrong, and that in this case the key‑answers were indeed erroneous as established by standard textbooks and expert opinions. Consequently, the students were entitled to the additional marks and admission as directed by the High Court. The Court dismissed the appeals with costs.

Issues considered

Whether a key‑answer supplied by a paper‑setter can be challenged in a court of law.
Whether the presumption of correctness of a key‑answer can be rebutted by clear evidence of error.
Whether students whose answers were correct according to authoritative textbooks are entitled to additional marks despite the published key‑answer.
Whether the High Court's order for reassessment and admission of the students is valid.

Legislation cited

U.P. State Universities Act, 1973s. 28

Subjects

multiple choice objective testkey answerexamination challengemedical college admissionUttar PradeshKanpur UniversityMBBS admissionre‑assessment of answer books

Judgment

r • k.ANPUR UNIVERSITY AND OtHERS

v.

SAMIR GUPTA AND OTHERS
A

September 27, 1983
B
[Y. V. CHANDRACHUD, C. J., R: S. PATHAK
AND SABYASACHI MUKHARJI, JJ.]

Entrance Examinations to courses of siudy'-Multiplt Choice Objectivt-
type TeSts-Combined Pre-medical Test for admission to medical collegeS in U.P. C
Whether Correatness of key-answers to questions set in the examintition open to
challenge ?

The appellant-University held the "Combined Pre-Medical Test" for
· admission to the seven medical colleges in U.P. during the year, 1982. The
pattern of examination adopted was known as·the "Mult_iple' Choice Objective-
type" test according to which a .paper containing 100 'questions with fou.r D
alternative answers for each question was set in each of the four subjects pres-
cribed for the test and the candidates were asked to tick the correct answer
from out of the four alternatives given. The marking of answer-book Was
done by a computer into which had be~n fed the key-answers supplied by the
paper-setters. When the University pubHshed the key-answers along with the
1
result of the test, the respondents who 'had .appeared in the test and whoSe
names did not figure in the ljst of successful candidates filed writ petitions E
contending that the key-answers published by the UnivefSity in regard to three
questions Were wrong, that the answers tic}ced by them in regard to those three
questions were correct and that if their ans~er-books Were reassessed correctly
tliey would be entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S. course. The High Court
accepted their cOntention and allowed the petitions.
;
F
. Council for the University contemled that no challenge should be
allow~d to be made to the correctness of a key-a·ns'wer unless, on the face of
.it, it is wrong:

Dismissing the appeals, ·
G
HELD: Normally, the key~answer furnished by the paJ)er-setter and
accepted by the University as correct, should 'not be allowed to be challenged.
the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless · it is proved to be
wrong and it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential prqcess of
reasoning or by a pro~ess of rationalisation but must be'clearly demonstrated H
to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of rr.en well-
versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. [81 D, H, 82 A-BJ
'
74 "' SUPRllME COURT REPoRTS (1984) 1s.c.it
In the instant case, the
contention ·~r the University is falsified by•a large
A number of acknowledged text-books, which are o.eommcnly read by students in
U.P. ·. Those text books leave no room for doubt that the answers given by the
students are correct and· the key-answers are incorrect. stnce the matter is
beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not

B
gi~ing an answer which accords with the key-answer, that is to saY, With an
answer which is deffionstrated to be wrong. [82 B-DJ

The publication of the key-answer has unravelled an unhappy state' of
affairs· to which tbe University and the State Governn1ent must find a solution.
The State Government should compile under its own auspices a text book
which should be prescribed for student desirous of appearing fo~ the Combined
,
Pre-inedi~al Test. A systeffi should be devised for moderating the keY-
answers furnished bY the paper-setters. If English-- questions have to be trans-
c lated. into Hindi it is not enough to·.,appoint an expert in Hi~di language as a
translator. The translator 111ust know the~ n1eaning of the scientific tenni-
nology, and the art of translation. In a S)'Stem of "Multiple Choice Objective-
type Test" care must be taken to see that questions having a11 ambiguous
import-are not set in the papers. Whenever the attention of the University
is draWn to any defect in a key-anSwer, or any ambiguity in a question set. in'
the examination, Prompt and 'timely decision must be taken by the University
D to declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper and no
marks.assigned to it. [81 F, 82 E, G-H, 83 ~-BJ

CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Civil Appeal Nos. 4092-4115
of 1983. ·

E Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 24th February, 1983 of the .Allahabad High Court '(Lucknow
Bench) in Writ Petition Nos. 4773-74/82, 4827, 5024, 5216, 5314,
5716-5717, 5724, 5816, 5817, 5818, 5819, 5821, 6029, 6067, 6069,
6102,.6103, 6389, of 1982 & 9, 14~, 230, 277of1983.

F AND
Civil Appeal Nos. 4068 4091of1983 .

. Appeals by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated
the 24th February, 1983 of the Allahabad High Court (Lucknow
G Bench) in Civil Mis Writ Petition Nos. 4773,4827,·5024, 5216,
5314, 5716;5717,.5724, 5816, 5817, 5818, 5819, 5821, 6029, 6067,
6069, 6102, 6103, 6389 of 1982 and 9, 146, 230, 277 of 1983.

In Civil Appeal No. 4092 - 4115 of 1983
H
· S.N. Kacker, Mrs. Shobha Dixit and Ku/sherstha for the
Appellants.
•'

KANPUR UNIVERSITY v. SAMIR GUPTA (chandrachud, C.J.) 'IS

'
•. R.K. Garg, R.K. Jain, M. Nitin Mahaµ Pop/i, Santosh Sethi and
Ms. Sangeeta Agurwal for Respondents in CA. 4092 of 1983. A

E.C. Aggarwala Mahavir Singh and K.K. Gupta for Respondents.

Robin Mitra, Anil Kumar Gupta, and Brij Bhushan, for
Respondents in CA. 4096 of W83. B
KC. Agarwala, Vijay K. Pandita and R. Satfsh for Respondents.

In Civil Appeal Nos. 4068-91 of 1983 :

Mrs. Shoba Dixit and Kapil Sibal for the Appellants. c
·~ M.M. Kshatriya, E.c: Aggarwala, Robin Mitra, K.K. Gupta,
M.B. Lal. Anil Kumar Gupta and Brtj Bhush~n for the Jespondents.

M.M. Kshatriya for Respondent No. 1. -D
.Mohan Pandey for Respondent.

The Judgment of the Court was delivered

CHANDRACHUD, C.J. These . appeals raise a some what E
awkward question : If a paper-setter commits.an error while indicat-
ing the correct answer to a question set by him, can the students
I who answer that question correctly be failed for the reason
that though their answer is correct, it doest not '\ccord with
. the answer supplied by the paper-setter to the University as the F
correct- answer ? The answ<;r which the paper-setter supplies to the
University as the correct answer is called the 'key answer'. l'[o one
can accuse the teacher of not knowing the correct answer to the
question set by him. But it seems that, occasionally, not enough
care is taken by the teachers to set questions which are free
· from ambiguity and to supply key answers which are correct G
beyond reasonable controversy. The keys supplied by the P'9'er-
setters in these cases raised more questions than they solved.

The respondents in these Appeals applied for admission to the
Medical Colleges in the State of Uttar Pradesh. There are 7 Medical
H
Colleges in the State of U.P., to which ,admission is granted on the
basis of' the result of a 'Combined Pre-Medical Test' which is held
SUPREME COtiR'l' REPollTS (1984) 1 s.C.ll.
in pursuance of the orde,s passed· by the State Government under
A section 28 of the U.P. State Universities Act 1973; The Govern-
of
ment nominates one the Universities in the' State for holding .the
Test every year. In the year 1982, the Kanpur Dniversity, the appel-
lant herein, was entrusted with the task of holding the Test. By any
standard,' it is a stupendous task because. 20,000 applications are
B received every year for admission to a total number of 779 seats in
the 7 Medical Colleges, out of which 50% are reserved seats and the
remaining 50% are open. Physics, Chemistry, Zoology and Botllny
are the four subjects which are prescribed for the Test. One paper
is. set for each subject and the pattern of the examination is what is
called the 'Multiple choice of objective-type test'. For persons
c belonging to yester generations, this is a ne1v-fanglid concept:
·, Hundred questions are set in each paper _and four alternative answers
are indicated against each question. The candidates are required to
tick the correct answer from out of those four. If he ticks the correct
answer, he secures 3 marl::s and if a candidate ticJ::s. an incorrect
1inswe.r, he loses I mark. Each. paper is of a duration of 3 .
D hours.

So far so good. The snag lies in determining which out of
the four suggested answers is the correct answer. That duty is

E
naturally· .assigned. to .the paper-setter, who is required to supply
to the University ·the correct answ.cr to each question, called the· .....
'key answer'. The difficulty involved in evaluating a very large
nnmber of answer-books is solved by ibe State Government,
quite successfully, by computerising the· result. The key answers are
fed into a co!)lputer and the marking computerised.
F
The difficulty which arose in tht<se cases is not due to the
failure of the computer, which is quite encouraging. The habit of
man is to blame the machine. The difficulty a·rose because the •key:
answers furnished by the paper-setters turned out to be wrong. · The
students got to know the key answers out of the generosity of the
G University. If wanted, rightly, to be frank and fair. . Therefore, it
published the. key answers along with the result of the test. Respon-
dents, whose names did not figure in .the list of Successful candidates,
. filed writ petitions· iu the High Court of Allahabad, contending that
the answers ticked by them were correct and the key answers wrong.
H
The High C<;mrt has accepted their contentiOn and that is. how the
Kanpur University has come to file these appeals. There. cannot be
a more telling instance of 'Shishyat Ichhet Parajam' (Wish for defeat
''
KANPUR UNIVERS11Y v. SAMIR GUPTA (Chandrachud, C.J.) 77

from your pupil). But the Gurus contend that the Shishyas are
wrong and do not deserve to wi_n. A
' There is no Controversy over the questions set in the Phy~ics
paper.· . The controversy arises in regard to three questions, one
each in the papers in Chemistry, Zoology and Botany. We will deal
with those three questions one by one, without making our own guess
as to which is the correct answer. Any way, we cannot indicate the
B
true answer to these appeals by m·erely ticking _off one of the two
options open to us, either io allow or. to dismiss the appeals. Ticking·
is the privilege of the new generation of students. We. have to giva
reasons in ·support of our answer.
c
.Question No. 24 onhl· Chemistry paper reads thus :

' "24. The theory of Electrolytic Dissociation was
given by-

1. Faraday D
2. Kohlraush
3. Arrehenius
4. Ostwald."
E
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
subiect, one of which is set in English and the other in Hindi.· We
do uot know which is the original version and which the translation
but it is common ground that one is the translation of the other. F
The Hindi version of Question No. 24, as transliterated, reads
thus: /
I.
"Vidyut Apaghatan ka sidhant kis Vegyanik ne diya
tha? ·G
!. Faraday
;
2. . Kohlrausch
L
H
3. Arrehenius

,4. Ostwald."
78 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984) 1 S.C,R,

The contention of the University, which accords with the key·
A answer, is that the third alternative furnishes the correct answer,
·namely, "Arrehenius', whetner the question is read in English or
in Hindi. There is no dispute that option No. 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
B of the students, .who are apparently very .clever, is that the correct

- answe(to the Hindi version of the question is 'Faraday', which is the
first alternative. Their argument is that the English Question No ..
- 24 and Hindi Question No. 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 'Vidy,ut apaghatan', whereas
c 'Electrolytic Dissociation means 'Vidyut .apaghataniya Viyojan',
and in the Hindi version of the question, the word 'Dissociation'
does not fiind its equivalent.

With their born knowledge of Hindi, 'the learned Judges of
D the Allahabad High Court have gone into the linguistic niceties with
some proficiency. Their judgment shows that in Medical Sciences
Glossary I, ·which is published by the Standing Commission for
Scientific and Technical Terminology, Ministry of Ed.~cation,
Government of India, the Hindi equivalent of the word 'Electrolysis'
E is given as 'Vidyut apaghatana' and of the word 'Dissociation' as
'Viyojan'. The High Court ·has quoted several ·acknowledged text
books iri Hindi which show that though the law of 'Electrolysis'
was first formulated by. Faraday in 1834, the theory of Electrolytic
Dissociation' was evolved.by Arrehenius 1887 which is known as
'Ionic-dissociation Theory'. · Amongst the authorities quoted by the
J1 High Court is a text-book prescribed for Intermediate classes by the
'Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P.' The High Court has accepted·
the respondents' contention that there is a 'marked difference' in the
English and Hindi version of question No. 24.
' '

G .The case of the respondents is that they tick-marked the answer
to Question No. 24 as it reads in Hindi and not as it reads in
English. Whether the respondents ~ead the Hindi question paper
or the one in English is incapable of verification and there is no·
.H means of contradicting that contention. They had the option to
answer the question paper as set in English or in Hindi. There is
no reason to disbelieve them when they say that tliey read the Hindi
ver;ion. Hindi is the medium of instruction in U.P., until a late
KANPUR UNIVERSiTY v. SAMJR GUPTA ( Chandrachud, C.J.) ·7'J

•!age of scholastic education. Besides, the tick-mark, being a symbol,
reads the same in English and Hindi. A
In support of its contention that the English and Hindi versions
of the question convey the same meaning, the University
produced the opinion of two experts, Prof. R.P. Singh of the
Department of Chemistry, Delhi University, and Dr. B.R. Agarwal,
an ex-Vice-Chancellor. These two gentlemen are .undobutedly well-
·u
versed in their speciality ·but the controversy turns more on the
knowledge of Hindi than ~f chemistry. Dr. Agarwal has himself
stated in his opinion that : "Even now the Hindi terminology is. not
so w,ell defined as in English and the 'Hindi terminology for the same
English concepts differs from author to author". In any event, as 'C
stated in the judgment of the High Court, the ·standard text·b.ooks
which · the students consult,· or are expected to consult, make a
distinction between 'Vidyut apaghatan' ou the one hand and 'Vidyut
apaghataniya viyojan' on the other. ·We must, therefore, uphold
the finding of the High Court that the key answer. to question
.No. 24 is correct in so far as the English version is concerned but D
that, the correct answer to the Hindi version of that question is the
I.sf option, namely, 'Far~day'. '

Coming next to the Zoology paper, Question No. 23 reads thus :
E
"23. Which one of the following was not prese_nt
iu free form at the time life originated ?

I. Hydrozen
..
2. Oxygen F
3. Water

4. Ammonia0

Whereas the students assert that the 2nd alternative, namely, G
'Oxygen' furnishes the torrect answer to the question, the key answer
shows that the correct answer is 'Ammonia. Here again, as pointed
out by the High Court, the standard text-books shows that 'Oxygen'
was not present in free form at the time when life originated. The
famous book on Biology by Claude A. Vi !las, while dealing with
B
the subject 'The Origin of Lif~', says: "M;ost authorities now agree
that the earth was very hot and molten when it was first formed and
I
.,

80 SUPREMll COURT REPORTS ' [1984) I s.c.»..

that conditions consistent with life appeared on the earth onrY
A perhaps three billion years ago". _ Two authors of international
repute, Tracy I. Starer and Rober L. Usinger, say in their· book
· "General Zoology' that "At some time m~re than a billion years ago , ' ).
temperature and moisture conditions became suitable for life. There
was no free oxygen, but the .atmosphere contained methane,
B amm011ia, ·hydrogen and water vapor"! Two Indian ahthor;, Dr.
Ramesh Gupta and·Vfrbala Rastogi, have expressed the same view
in thefr respective books 'Aadhunik Jantu Vigyati· a~d 'Madhyamik f
Jantu Vigyan';'

The University produced the opinion of Shri R. S. Vishrtoi of'
c tbe Departinent of Zoology, University of Deihl.· We agree with
the High Court that though Shri Vishnoi is a knowledgeable person
in his speciality, he was evidently under some confusion while, giving
Ws opinion. Profundity sometimes creates. confusion. In the very
opening sentence of his opinion, Shri Vishnoi says : "The point is
about.free.ammonia". That is not the point. The question which
D the students were asked to answer was not "about free ammonia"
but which of the four ajternatives was not presenUn free form when
life originated. Shri Vishnoi has also not given .specific citations
from the two books to which he has referred in support of his·
opinion. We therefore agree with the conclusion of .the High Court
that the answer to question No. 23 in the Zoology paper is 'oxygen'
a·s contended for by the respondents and . not 'Ammonia' as stated
in the key answer. · '
•
'Question No. 66 in the Botany paper has an interesting story
of its own. That question reads as' foUows :
F
"66. The net gain of A.T.P. Molecules in Glycolysis
iS :

(I) 0

(2) 2

(3) 4

(4) 8"

Whereas the students contended that the 2nd alternative furnishes
the correct answer, the key answer which was· fed· to the computer
KANPUR UN!VERM1Y V. S;MJR GUI-TA (Ch,ndrad;ud, C.i) · 81

was alternative No. 4. Here also, the various text-boo.ks cited by
the students tend to show that the key answer fed into the computer A
was not the correct answer. The High Court has copiously referred
to the standard text-books on the subject. We need not do so
since, the more interesting part of this controversy is the expert
opinion of Shri Arya Bhushan · Gupta which was filed by the Uni•
versity in the High Court. According to that opinion, the correct
B
answer to Question No. 66 is neither the 2nd option nor the 4th
but the 3rd. In other words, according to Shri Gupta, the net gain
of A.T.P. molecules in Glycolysis· is neither 2 as contended by the
students, nor 8 as mentioned in the key answer but 4 which is
nobody's case except the expert's. Thus, the case of the University
is demolished ,by its own expert. In these circumstances, we cannot. c
find fault with the High Court for holding that ihe key answer is
not the correct answer to Question No. 66. •

The findings of the High Court raise a question of' great
importance to the student . community. Normally, one would be D
inclined to the view, especially if one has been a paper setter and
an examiner, that the key answer furnished bo the paper setter and
accepted by the University as correct, sho.uld. 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 E
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
ans.wer were kept secret in this case, the remedy would. have been ,
worse than the disease because, so many students would have had F
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
t6 have a· closer look at the system of examinations which they
conduct. What has failed is not the computer but the human G
system.

Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, con·
tended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the B
correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong.'
We agree that the key-answer should be assumed to be correct unless
it is prove<) to l)e wrong and that it slioul<) not pe held to pe -wron11
82 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (1984] I S.C.R.

by an inferential process of reasoning <;>r by a process of rationali- \'
A sation. It must be clearl.y demonstrated to be wrong, that is' to say'
it must be such ·as no reasonable body of men wen:versed in the
particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the ~
University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged
text-books, which are common1y read by students in U.P. Those
. text-books leave rro room· for doubt ·that the · answer given by the _ "4
students i.s correct and the key answer is incorrect. 1
Students whci have passed their Intermediate Board Exami-
nation are eligible to appear for the entrance Test for admission to
the Medical Colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for. the
c Intermediate Board Examination an(I such knowledge of the s11bjects
as the students have is derived from what is · cont.ained in those
text-books. Those text-books support the case of the Biudents fully.
If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred
the key answer. But if the matter is beyonC! the realm of doubt, it
D would be unfai.r to penalise the students for not giving an answer
which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer
w,hich is demonstrated to be wrong.

If the State Government wants to avoid a· recurrence of such
E lapses, it should compile under its own auspices a .text~book
. which should be prescribed for students desirous of appearing for the ·
.. combined Pre-Medical Test. Education has mo.re than its fair share
•of politics, which is the bane of our Universities. Numerous problems
are bound to arise in the compilation of siich a text-book for, various
applicants will. come forward for doing the job and forces and
•
F counter-forces will wage a battle on the question as to who should
be commissioned to do the work. If the State can succeed in over-
coming those .difficulties,, the argument will not be open to the
students that the answer contained in the text-book which is pres-
cribed for the test is no.t the correct answer. Secondly, a system
should be devised by the State Government for . moderating the key
G
answers furnished by the paper setters. Thirdly, if English questions
. have to be translated into Hindi, it is· not enough to appoint an
expert in the Hindi language as a translator. The translator must
kn.ow the meaning of the scientific terminology and the art of trans-
lation. Fourthly, in a s:ystfm of 'Multiple Choice Objective-type
:1:1 test', care must be taken to see that · questions having an ambiguous
imporf are·not set in the papers That· kind of system of exami-
. n~tion invo\ves. --merely
- ·- - ' .
, - .the lick-markin~
. . . .
of the. correct
. . .
answer.
', ..
,It..
. KANPUR UNIV,ERSITV v: SAMIR GUPTA (Chandrach11d, C.J.) 83

leaves no scope for reasoning or argument. The answer is 'yes'-or
'no'. . That is why the questions have to be clear and unequivocal.
Lastly, if the attention of the University ·is drawn to any defect in a
key a'nswer or any ambiguity in a question s~t in the examination,
prompt and timely decision must be taken by the University to
declare that the suspect question will be excluded from the paper
and no marks assigned to it. B
There was some argument before us as to the nature of the
relief which can be granted to the respondents. It was contended
by Smt. Dixit, who appears on behalf of the State of.U.P., that six
ofthe respondents have been already admitted to the B.D.S. Course·
and, therefore, they should not now be admitted to the M.B.B.S. c
course, We cannot accept this submission since, those students
sought admission to the Dental course only because they were not
admitted· to ihe M.B.B.S. cqurse. And they were denied admission
to the M.B.B.S. course wrongly.'
D
( Twenty-seven students in all were concerned with these pro-
ceedings, out of whom 8 'were admitted to the B.D.S. course, 3 ·
were admitted to the M.B.B.S. course last .Year itself in place of the
studedts who dropped out and 5 have succeeded in getting admission
this year. Omitting 8 of the respondents who h~ve been already
admitted to the M.B.B.S. course, the remaining 19 shall have to be E
given admission as directed by the High Court. If the key answer
was not wrong as it has turned out to be, they would have succeeded
in getting admission. In view of the findings of the High Court,
the question naturally arose as to11ow the marks were to be allotted
to the respondents for the three questions answered ·by them and
which were wrongly assessed by the University. The High Court
F
has held that the respondents would be entitled to be given 3 marks
for each of the questions correctly ticked by them, and in addition
they would be entitled to 1 mark for those very quesiions, since 1
mark was deducted from. their total for each of the questions
wrongly answered by them. Putting it briefly, such of the respon- G
dents as are found to have attempted the three questions or any of
them would be entitled. to an addition of 4 marks per question.
If the answer-books are reassessed in accordance with this formula,
the respondents would be entitled to be admitted to the M.B.B.S.
course, about which there i~ no dispute. Accordingly, we confir~ the H
directions given by the High Court in regard to the reassessment of
the particular questions and the admission of t!i~ respondents (o the
M.B.B.S. course . ·
84 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [198~] 1 s.c.R.

There is one student, Miss Reeta Gupta, whose grievance is
A that if she is given additional marks as directed by the High Cou'rt,
her place will go higher up in the merit list, as a consequence whereof
she would be eligible for admission to the Medical College situated
in her place of residence. · Smt. Dixit says that Miss Gupta should
apply to th~ Government in 'this behalf and the Government could
B consider her application. We do not think that there is any justi·
fication for us to interfere with the order passed by the High Court
on this score also.

We understand that some petitions are pending in the High
Court on these very points. .Those petitions will be disposed of by
c the High Court in the light of this judgment, pmvided that the
petitioners therein make out a case for interference as the students
in these appeals have done. We however, direct that no fresh
petitions should be entertained by the High Court and, of course,
none will be entertained by us hereafter on· the questions involved
D in. these _appeals arising out of the test . which was held in I\ 82.
The new academic session is due to commence within the next few
days and these questions cannot be allowed to be raised in a leisurely
fashion so as to disorganise the scheme of fresh admissions.

In the result, these appeals are dismissed with costs.
E
H.L.C. Appeals dismissed.

/

....