B. SUBHASHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) UNLIKE past, when only legal questions were presented before the courts for adjudication - the courts now are flooded not only with legal questions, but several other issues like, political, economical and even academic, apart fromother umpteen problems unrelated strictly to the process of judicial review, but dressed up as legal issues and presented for judicial review. these cases relate to such dressed up issue relating to academic problem Butthe court knows where to draw line even stretching the power of judicial review to the extent possible in the context of changing situations and yet limit to the parameters.

( 2 ) THIS batch of writ petitions relate to the admission to Post Graduate Medical courses. As is not unusual, this batch cropped up with the entrance examination conducted to the said courses on 9-7-1995. It has become almost an annual fearure of filing cases relating to entrance examinations. Seeing thespate of litigation time and again as asequel to the entrance examination every year without exception, may give a feeling that the old policy of admissions basing on the merit in the qualifying examination has to be revived. Of course, that is not the concern of this Court to decide and it is for the Government and Academicians to ponder.

( 3 ) THE entrance examination was conducted on 9-7-1995. It is ununderstandable as to why the University had to take a time of full three months and declare the results only on 8-10-1995. I see no reason or justification for such an abnormal delay in declaration of results, more so, in acase of entrance examination like this, where the questions are objective in nature and with ready made key answers and it should in no event take more than two weeks to declare the results; of course, if the academicians have got a will to do so. It is a different thing, if, for thinking process some time is consumed, but absolutely there is no thinking process involved in the instant case for the reasons already mentioned supra that it is with a crisp questions of objective type with key answers already prepared and what all to do is to verify whether the answers offered by the students conform to the key answers. If it is yes, marks are allotted, otherwise, not. Another intriguing factor is not finalising the admissions even after the delayed declaration of results on 8-10-1995. Even though litigation was pending in this court, there was no stay of process of admission and that is why some students have filed W. P. Nos. 25475 and 28067 of 1995 and what is more, this Court had to compel the University of Health Sciences to issue a direction in W. P. No. 28067 of 1995 to go ahead with the selection process, but not to finalise the same, by order dated 29-12-1995 and the Contempt Case No. 6 of 1996 was initiated complaining of non-compliance of the said directives issued by this Court.

( 4 ) NOW, what is the conduct of the writ petitioners in W. P. Nos. 25111, 25119 and 28312 of 1995, in which a challenge is made with regard to the questions framed. the questions framed are 200 in number carrying one mark each. It is said that about 7000 students participated in the entrance examination and it is needless to mention that all these students had already acquired MBBS qualification and they were competing for admission to post graduate medical courses. It is not that all the 7000 students are assailing the entrance examination either on the ground of quality of the questions or correctness of the key answers. Very small fraction of students complained to this court that while Regulation 10 of the examination Rules prescribe MBBS standard, the standard was much more man that, that some questions had no definite answers, some questions were having doubleanswers and that key answers offered to some questions were wrong. It was not demonstrated before me by any of the learned counsel for the petitioners to substantiate their contentions excepting adverting to the pleading re

Click Here to Read the rest of this document