The main legal point established in the judgment is that the J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examinations had the power to nullify questions and change answers, and that the decision was taken in a fair, transparent, and objective manner.

Hasnain Massodi, J.

1. Facts in petitions on hand are by and large admitted. Controversy is restricted to competence of J&K Board of Professional Entrance Examinations (hereinafter referred to as "Board"), to take decision impugned in writ petitions, mode and manner of decision taken and justification for such decision. Board in April 2014 initiated annual exercise to make selection for Professional Colleges of the State and recommend selected candidates for admission in various Streams in such Colleges, before the specified date. Board on 8th April 2014 issued a Notification informing eligible candidates that Board was likely to issue a Notification inviting applications from aspirants for admission in question. This was in the nature of wake up call, so that candidates would organise their record and get ready to fill up and submit their applications in prescribed format. Admission Notification was issued on 15th April 2014. Petitioners in writ petitions on hand, like other aspirants, submitted their applications as directed in Information Brochure. Board issued Common Entrance Test 2014 (CET 2014) Schedule on 2nd May 2014. In terms of notification, CET 2014 was to be held on 7th and 8th June 2014. The Test was conducted as per schedule.

2. Board, as promised in Information Brochure, hosted answer key on its website on 8th July 2014. Candidates were given liberty to submit their representations within two days in the event anyone, amongst them, had any reservation about answers indicated in answer key. If Board is to be believed, it in all received 276 representations against answer key. 109 such representations related to Physics subject, while 102 and 65 were concerning Biology and Chemistry subjects respectively. Board referred representations alongwith supporting material appended to representations to Expert Committees.

3. The Committees, on going through representations and connected material, recommended "nullifications" of 17 questions and change in answer to 02 questions i.e. question No. 65 Biology (Set No. A) and question No. 51 Chemistry (Set No. A). Board, acting on recommendations, hosted revised answer key on its website on the date specified in Information Brochure. Questions nullified may be tabulated as under:

Subject	Set.No.	Questions No.	Total
Physics	A	07,11.23,34,52,57	06
	B	06	01
Chemistry	A	6,32,47,50,68	05
	B	07	01
Biology	A	14,41,57,59	04
Total	17

4. In addition to nullification/deletion of aforementioned questions in various subjects, Board also changed answers to question No. 65 Biology (Set No. A) and question No. 51 Chemistry (Set No. A). Merit of candidates was evaluated on the basis of revised key and result/rank notified, accordingly.

5. Petitioners are aggrieved with decision taken by Board to nullify aforementioned questions and change answers of two questions, on the ground that decision was taken without competence and authority and also that as one of answers to nullified questions in answer key, was correct, there was no justification to nullify questions. It is urged that Board, by nullifying questions, has deprived petitioners of marks/points, they would have earned, had their merit been assessed on the basis of answer key.

6. Petitioner in OWP No. 1063/2014 claims to have correctly answered question Nos. 14 & 57 (Biology, Set No. A), question Nos. 06, 32, 68 (Chemistry, Set No. A) and question No. 52 (Physics, Set No. A), and therefore in a position to secure 154 marks. Her case is that nullification of these questions and change in answer to question No. 65 Biology (Set No. A) and question No. 51 Chemistry (Set No. A), brought down her merit from 154 to 145.6 and her rank to 00507.

7. Petitioner in OWP No. 1251/2014 claims to have correctly answered most of nullified questions and nullification of questions to