(Per P.B. Majmudar, J.):

Rule. Learned Assistant Government Pleader waives service of Rule on behalf of the respondents. With the consent of the learned Advocates, rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By filing this petition, the petitioner, who is a student, has raised an important issue for consideration of this Court as to whether at the time of taking Common Entrance Test (“CET” for short) examination, any deviation can be made by the respondents in the matter of giving marks contrary to Rules and instructions given in this behalf.

3. The petitioner has cleared her HSC Examination from the Maharashtra State and Higher Secondary Education Board, Pune and secured 62% marks in the subjects of Physics, Chemistry and Biology. The State of Maharashtra, for the purpose of admission for medical and dental courses framed rules and introduced CET. As per the said Rules, the duration of the examination is three hours. The method of answering the questions is also prescribed in the Rules. As per the information brochure, condition 3.3 provides as under:

“The candidate will be required to mark the correct answer by blackening the corresponding circle against the serial number of the question in the answer sheet with black ink ballpoint pen only. Out of four circles provided for selection of an answer against a question, the candidate should fill up one circle only. Each correct answer will be given mark/(s)., There shall be no negative marking for wrong answers. CHANGING AN ANSWER IS NOT ALLOWED: The candidates must fully satisfy themselves about the accuracy of the answer before darkening the appropriate circle, as no change in the answer once marked is allowed. The answer once marked is final, any change in the option once marked, done by any method, will amount to a invalid/incorrect response. Scratching, overwriting, tick mark and multiple answers will be considered as wrong answers and no marks will be allotted to them.

4. The petitioner appeared for the said CET examination but since she had not secured adequate percentage of marks, she was not considered for admission in the course. The petitioner, after declaration of results, applied for verification of marks. Prior to the declaration of results, the petitioner filed a writ petition being Writ Petition (Lodging) No. 1448 of 2007 in which a grievance was in connection with the late distribution of question papers in her centre by ten minutes. The Division Bench held that since the documents have been received subsequent to the final hearing of the matter and when the matter was reserved for judgment, this by itself would constitute a separate cause of action. The Division Bench however gave liberty to the petitioner to file a separate petition and that is how this petition has been filed.

5. On going through the answer sheet, the petitioner has realised that she was given marks in connection with those answers which have been given by putting even tick marks. The petitioner had darkened the circle while answering some questions and put some ticks in connection with the answer to some questions.

6. Challenge in this petition is to the procedure adopted by the respondents in the matter of analysis of the answer sheets of the students.

It is the case of the petitioner that assuming other students who have put only tick marks have been assigned the marks, such marks are required to be ignored as per condition No. 3.3 of the brochure, to which reference is made earlier in this order.

7. Ms. Thorat, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, has submitted that considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the respondents should be directed to re-screen and/or evaluate the mark sheets of all the students strictly in accordance with the Rules. It is submitted that if the software or computer programme is taking tick mark as a correct answer, the same software/computer programme is required to be replaced in consonance with the Rules framed in this behalf. 8. In