The correctness of the key-answers prepared by an academic body like the University is not always justiciable in a Writ Court. Such matters should ordinarily be left to the academic bodies and be a no-entry area for Law-Courts, unless the error is apparently manifest and would stare at the face without any elaborate argument.

1. A former Chief Justice of India, Justice chandrachud, states in his Foreward to Justice K. K. Mathew's 'democracy, equality and Freedom' (Edited by Dr. Upendra Baxi) that "in our present dispensation, a Judge cannot, except for honourable exceptions, lay plausible claim to legal scholarship". If a Judge of a Court of Law, having had to decide questions of law day in and day out, cannot still lay plausible claim to legal scholarship, he should not a fortiori have any claim to know non-law matters like Medical Science or such other subjects of speciality. At any rate, my learned brother Guin, J., and I have no claim to legal or any other scholarship and would never dream of laying any claim to any knowledge in Medical sciences and that too of Post-graduate level Why I make this observation would appear hereinafter.

2. THE writ-Petitioner, who is now Respondent before us, has challenged the correctness of the test-examination for admission to the N. D. Course in obstretics and Gynecology. The pattern of examination is what is called 'multiple-Choice-Objective-Type Test There was one paper containing 95 questions; four alternative answers were set out against each question and the candidate was to choose one by putting a tick -mark to the most appropriate answer. One mark was to be allotted for the correct choice, half-mark was to be deducted for an incorrect choice. The Paper-setter supplied to the University the correct answer to each question, called the 'key-answer'. The Writ Petitioner contended that she was wrongly declared to have failed on the basis of such 'key-Answers' as many of those answers were wrong while her answers were correct. The Appellant University, as directed by the learned trial Judge, referred the questions and the answers to two experts in succession and their reports were duly received. It is not disputed, and has rather been rarely conceded by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, that even on. the basis of those two reports and after giving full effect thereto, the Petitioner could not obtain the minimum marks necessary for admission.

3. THE Petitioner however, at the close of the arguments, submitted a Supplementary Affidavit with detailed Note purporting to contain extracts from various treatises on the subject and contended therein that though not so held by any of the two Experts, some more questions ?were ambiguous or otherwise defective and some more Key-answers were wrong and her answers were correct. The learned Judge chose to admit and also to accept the Note contained in the Petitioner's Supplementary Affidavit, even though no opportunity was given to the University to counter the same, as we are told, relevant treatises were also not produced by the Petitioner for the perusal of the learned judge. And on that basis, the learned Judge decided in favour of the Petitioner in restrict of about 11 questions more and after awarding marks on such basis, declared the Petitioner to have obtained marks requisite for admission and allowed the writ-Petition.

4. AS I have held in recent Division Bench Case in University of Calcutta vs. Anindya Kumar Das and Ors decided on 13th March, 1992, these questions cannot be appropriately determined in a Writ-proceeding unless we throw as under all the limitations imposed in Writ Jurisdiction by well-settled principles and binding precedents. Ajoy Nath Ray, J., who has come out with a much more comprehensive and well-considered Judgment in that case, has very ably and amply demonstrated the impossibility as well as. impermissibility of such a task in a Writ proceeding. And even though I am grateful to the learned Senior counsel, Sri Kashi Kanta Maitra, for his very persuasive and learned argument for and on behalf of the Respondent, I have not been able to take a different view. The Judgment of the learned trial Judge would itself demonstrate how complicated and seriously disputed the questions and their answers are. The petitioner herself has admitte