Where the key answers prepared by the paper setters in an objective-type entrance exam are demonstratively wrong or where the questions are ambiguous, allowing for multiple correct answers, the examinee is entitled to marks for the questions with demonstratively wrong key answers and there should be no negative marking for the ambiguous questions where the examinee's answer is also a correct answer according to authoritative textbooks.

( 1 ) THIS appeal is at the instance of the petitioner and it has been preferred against the judgment and order passed in Civil Rule No. 13739 (W) of 1982 (reported in AIR 1984 Cal 330) discharging the Rule on holding that the Respondents have not acted arbitrarily and capriciously and in violation of Rule of law in holding the Admission Test for selecting the candidates for admission to the M. S. Course in 1982 session. It was also held that there was no lack of bona fide in selecting model answers by the paper setters as most appropriate by relying upon well known text books.

( 2 ) THE Appellant, who is a Medical Graduate of the Calcutta University applied in response to an advertisement made on April 12, 1982 in the Amrita Bazar Patrika for appearing in the selection test to be held by the Post Graduate Admission Board for selecting candidates for admission to the different Post Graduate Courses in Medicine including M. S. (General Surgery) Courses. Thereafter an Admit Card was sent to him with a copy of the notice entitled "general Information" purporting to contain the Rules and Regulations relating to the admission in the M. D. /m. S. Courses of the University for the 1982 session. The said Rules and Regulations were purported to have been issued by the Respondent No. 3, Secretary, Council of Post Graduate Studies in Medicine, University of Calcutta and by the Respondent No. 4, Secretary, Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research laying down that objective type of questions would be set. The petitioner duly appeared in the said Entrance Examination for M. S. (General Surgery) held on June 26, 1982 with other candidates. The question paper contained the following instructions :- (a) choose only one most appropriate answer against each question and put that particular answer No. only in the box provided against the respective question No. in the Answer sheet. (b) more than one answer if recorded against any question, will be treated as wrong. (c) for each wrong answer mark will be deducted and for each correct answer one mark will be awarded.

( 3 ) SEVENTY-FIVE questions were required to be answered by an examinee by choosing the most appropriate answers out of the multiple answers suggested under each question within a period of one hour. The petitioner duly submitted his answer paper. The result of the written test were purported to have been worked out with the aid of computer. The petitioner submitted that the computer must have been fed with the model answer alleged to be the only correct answer or the most appropriate answer even though there are more than one correct answers to many of the questions and thereby purporting to regularise the mischief involved in the process. The alleged process of working out the result is not faultless as the computer was not fed with other correct answers to some of the questions. On July 19, 1982 the Respondents Nos. 3 and 4 published a list of 25 candidates selected for admission to the said M. S. Course (General Surgery ). This list did not include the name of the petitioner. The petitioner made representation on December 1, 1982 objecting to the purported exclusion of his name from the selection list and requested the authority concerned for evaluating his answers. Nothing was done by the authority concerned in this respect. Hence an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India challenging arbitrariness, capriciousness of the method of setting questions with multiple answers and evaluating them with the key answers prepared by the paper setters was moved and obtained a Civil Rule being C. R. No. 13739 (W) of 1982 (reported in AIR 1984 Cal 330) and also an interim order that the petitioner would be admitted in the M. S. Course provisionally subject to the decision of the Rule.

( 4 ) AN affidavit-in-opposition, sworn by Sri Ajit Kumar Dutta, Secretary, Council for Post Graduate Studies in Medicine, University of Calcutta, the Respondent