C.K.Prasad and S.K.Sharma JJ.

1. Writ petitioner- appellant, aggrieved by the order dated 20th October, 2008 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 7631 of 2007, has preferred this appeal under Clause 10 of the letters patent.

2. Short facts, giving rise to the present appeal are that the writ petitioner No. 1- appellant herein appeared in the All India PMT/DPT Entrance Examination held on 1st April, 2007 conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (hereinafter referred to as CBSE). The result of the examination was published on 5th of June, 2007 and finding herself unsuccessful she made request for revaluation of the answer sheets. When the said request was not acceded to she preferred the writ application. When the writ application was taken up on 24th of August, 2007 this Court directed her to deposit a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (twenty five thousand) and while doing so it was observed that in the event it transpires that her paper was correctly evaluated, the amount deposited by her shall be treated as cost and be paid to the CBSE. It was further observed that on receipt of the amount the CBSE shall produce her answer sheets. She deposited the amount and her answer sheets were produced. The learned Single Judge on consideration of the materials placed before it came to the conclusion that her answer sheets were not correctly evaluated and she was entitled for two more marks. Finding of the learned Single Judge in this regard, reads as follows:

After thorough perusal of the answer sheets and model answers the result of the petitioner after scrutiny as per information of the petitioner No. 1 has been placed before this Court through the supplementary affidavit which contains comparative chart of model answers given by petitioner No. 1 with reference to certain questions in the papers of Botany, Zoology and Chemistry. This court was also taken through the comparative chart of answers given by petitioner No. 1 and the model answers as well as the answers in the book of N.C.E.R.T. which is also incorporated in the chart. The reply to question No. 3(e) in the paper of Botany and the reply of the petitioner to question No. 20(a)-iii in chemistry shows that her answers were correct as per the prescribed text book for those subjects but since the answers were to be given in the subjective manner, it was not in the same language as in the model answers. Thus, this Court is satisfied that petitioners answer sheets were not correctly evaluated in the context of questions worth two marks.

3. Despite the aforesaid finding the learned Single Judge declined to grant relief to the petitioner, inter alia, observing that the seats have already been allotted and one year of study has been undertaken by the successful candidates and in the face thereof it would be inexpedient to direct for her admission. The learned Single Judge also took into consideration that the examination of the next year had already been conducted and admission granted to the successful candidates. Absence of any interim order reserving any seat in case of success of the writ petition was also taken into account by the learned Single Judge while declining the relief. However, while doing so it observed as follows:

Model answers are suitable for objective tests only because two correct answers may be described by good students in two different languages and only an expert in the subject can evaluate the correctness of such answers. When the correct answer given by the petitioner for two questions did not fetch her the required two marks, it reflects upon the correctness of the assessment system adopted by the C.B.S.E. for evaluating subjective answers. The C.B.S.E. in its own wisdom may adopt a better system to finalize model answers or it may adopt objective questions even for the final examination. These are suggestions which must be considered by the experts with a view to prevent same kind of injury to any other candidate in future.

4. Mr. Sa