1. - The petitioners have filed this writ petition with the prayer that the respondents be directed to invite objections from the candidates against the answer key of RPMT Examination, 2009. Further, it has been prayed that the respondents be directed to constitute an Expert Committee to consider objections of the petitioners and other candidates of RPMT Examination, 2009. It has also been prayed that the respondents be directed to publish fresh answer key as per the opinion of the Expert Committee and to prepare a fresh merit list in accordance to it.

2. The relevant facts relating to the present controversy are that the respondent No.4 had issued an advertisement inviting applications for appearance in the RPMT Examination, 2009, in furtherance of which the petitioners had applied and appeared in the said examination. The result of the RPMT Examination, 2009 was declared by respondent No.4 on 4.6.2009. It was followed by publication of the answer key in the newspaper. The petitioners had noticed that some wrong answers were given in the answer key and no objections were invited by the respondents against the answer key of RPMT Examination, 2009, as had been done by the respondent-University in respect of the examination of the year 2008.Therefore, the students moved an application, under Right to Information Act, before respondent No.2 and prayed for giving the copy of question papers of RPMT Examination, 2009. But the said request was turned down. Then the petitioners alongwith other candidates submitted a representation on 17.6.2009 to respondent No.2 with the request to supply the question papers of RPMT Examination, 2009. It was also requested that an Expert Committee in the matter may be constituted to rectify the mistake committed in the answer key and a fresh answer key may be issued thereafter. The Assistant Registrar of the respondent- University had declined the request made by the petitioners in respect of the demand of question paper of RPMT Examination, 2009. The respondents neither constituted any Expert Committee nor issued the answer key, as requested by the petitioners.

3. On 16.7.2009, the first counseling for admission to the Medical College was started and ended on 18.7.2009. Then again the petitioners alongwith other candidates made a representation on 9.7.2009 reiterating the request for making available the question paper and to revise the answer key. Thereafter another representation was submitted on 15.7.2009, but no heed was paid. On 14.8.2009, the information with regard to second round of counseling of RPMT Examination, 2009 was published. It was mentioned that the second counseling shall be conducted from 27.8.2009 to 29.8.2009. When all the representations made by the petitioners were not responded to by the respondent- University then a notice for demand of justice was sent to them on 19.8.2009. But the respondents did not constitute an Expert Committee to redress the grievance of the petitioners in respect of RPMT Examination, 2009.

4. Notices in this petition were issued to the respondents by the Court on 26.8.2009. Further, it was ordered that the result of the counseling of RPMT Examination, 2009 shall be subject to the decision of the writ petition. Thereafter the respondents had filed reply to the writ petition admitting the averments made in the writ petition, to the extent that answer key of RPMT Examination, 2009 was published; objections were invited from the effected parties and the University had constituted an Expert Committee, in respect of RPMT Examination, 2008.Further, it was stated in the reply that when the students moved an application under Right to Information Act on 5.6.2009, the respondent-University did not give the required information in compliance of the provision of para No.13 of "Instructions for Examination" of Information Booklet RPMT, 2007, approved by Government of Rajasthan. Thereafter Mr. K. B. Agarwal filed an appeal against the said order passed by th