The judgment of the Court was as follows :––

Bhattacharjee, J. : I have had the advantage of going through the draft of the very well-written, well-considered and comprehensive Judgment of Ray, J. and I agree with the order proposed by him in his judgment appearing hereinafter and particularly in the concluding paragraph.

2. The weight, the elaborate reasoning, the eloquence and also the length of his judgment ought to have hushed me into silence. But notwithstanding my concurrence in the order proposed by him, I propose to come out with a separate not spelling out the process of my own reasoning as on some aspect of the case, I do not, as at present advised, intend to go so far as Ray, J. proposes to go.

3. The writ-petitioners challenge the correctness of the test-examination for admission to the post-graduate medical courses. The pattern of examination is what is called ‘Multiple-Choice Objective-Type Test’. One paper is set for each discipline containing 95 questions; four alternative answers are given to each question and the candidate is to choose by putting a tick-mark to the mot appropriate answer. One mark to be allotted for the correct choice, half-mark to be deducted for an incorrect choice. The Paper-setter supplies to the University the correct answers to each question, called the ‘Key Answer’. The petitioners contended that they were wrongly failed on the basis of such key answers as many of those answers were wrong while their answers were correct. The earned trial Judge accepted their contention and held many of the Key answers to be wrong and the candidates’ answers to be right after delving into a large number of opinions of the experts and a larger number of text-books. The petitioners, as Respondents before us, have also invited us to approve the course. I regret that I cannot, does brother Ray.

4. The hearing of these cases took about 23 days before us and, we are told, more time before the trial Court. If the arguments related to questions of law only, however complicated, that would have been a different matter and it would have been our plainest duty to resolve the disputes. But arguments solely related to questions of facts and facts only, namely, whether the key answers were demonstrably wrong and the length of the arguments and the mass of materials in the shape of large number of expert opinions and specialised treatises and the Judgment of Ray, J., have amply demonstrated how enormously complicated the questions are.

5. These questions can, if at all, properly be resolved in a duly constituted regular suit where experts can be examined and cross-examined with reference to their opinions and extracts in the relevant treatises. The Court must disown their competence to read and appreciate expert reports on subjects of specialty without the explanatory evidence of the expert. Can we, without the aid of a medical expert, read and fully comprehend even an ordinary ‘X’ Ray, or E. C. G. or even Pathological report ? Ordinarily the report of experts does not go in as evidence without the expert being examined, unless a statutory provision, e.g. Section 293, Code of Criminal Procedure, provides to that effect. The provisions of Section 60, Evidence Act would govern the matter providing that when evidence related to "an opinion or to the grounds on which that opinion is held, it must be the evidence of a witness who holds that opinion on those grounds". Text Books, which were cited before us, were also experts opinions which may go in under the first proviso to Section 60. We may realise them but may not always understand them without the assistance of experts and the learned Counsel who appeared before us were not medical experts.

6. A proceeding under Article 226 is not to be resorted to as a substitute for ordinary suits when investigation into disputed and complicated questions is necessary. It is not to be availed of when a remedy by way of suit is available and is adequately, if not more, efficacious