Judgment

Sanjay Dhar, J.—The petitioners have challenged order bearing No.F(Misc-Legc)KU/18 (Annexure-A to the writ petition) issued by respondent No.3, whereby claim of the petitioners with regard to their objections to the final answer key has been rejected. They have also impugned the result notification bearing No.01 dated 16.07.2018 pertaining to J&K SET, 2017-18, issued by respondents. A further direction upon respondents to consider the grievances of the petitioners and reframe the result of petitioners has also been sought.

2. Briefly stated, case of the petitioners is that respondent No.3 vide notification dated 30th of November, 2017, invited applications from eligible candidates for State Eligibility Test-2017-18 exams. In response to the said notification, the petitioners being eligible applied for the same and appeared in the test which was conducted by respondent No.3 on 11.03.2018. It is stated that vide notice dated 19.03.2018, the respondent No.3 notified the official key of various sets of question papers pertaining to the aforesaid examination and representations/queries regarding the said key were invited from the candidates. The petitioners claim that answers to some of the questions given in the key were wrong and, accordingly, they responded to the aforesaid notification. After taking note of these representations, the respondent No.3 issued revised second key vide notice dated 25th of May, 2018. Objections against the modified key were again invited from the candidates. The petitioners are stated to have responded to the second key as well pointing out the errors therein, where after respondent No.3 issued final answer key i.e. 3rd key as well as the result notification on 16th of July, 2018. It is averred by the petitioners that there were glaring mistakes even in the 3rd key which were brought to the notice of respondents by making representations but the same were not considered by the respondents.

3. It is the case of the petitioners that a perusal of the 3rd revised key would reveal that there are various discrepancies in so far as the answers given to some of the questions in different subjects are concerned. The petitioners have given illustrations of those discrepancies in their writ petition and annexed documents to support their contentions. According to the petitioners, if these mistakes/discrepancies in the third modified key are corrected/set right, they are sure to succeed in the examination and make the cutoff merit.

4. It has been submitted by the petitioners that despite making a number of representations with the respondents against the errors appearing in the final answer key, no action was taken by them compelling the petitioners to file a writ petition bearing OWP No.1530/2018 before this Court. The said petition was disposed of by the Court vide its order dated 20.08.2018, whereby respondent No.3 was directed to look into the grievances of the petitioners and pass a speaking order within a period of two weeks.

5. It is alleged that the respondents, instead of considering the grievances of the petitioners pursuant to the direction of this Court, passed the impugned order rejecting the claim of the petitioners in a casual manner and thereby exhibiting non-application of mind. The petitioners have challenged the action of the respondents on the ground that the answers given in the final answer key are demonstrably wrongly but this fact has not been taken note of by the respondents while passing the impugned order. According to the petitioners, instant case is a fit one where this Court should intervene and pass appropriate directions. The petitioners have relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in the case of Rajesh Kumar and Ors. Vs. State of Bihar and Ors., (2013) 4 SCC 690, and Manish Ujwal & Ors. Vs. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University, (2005) 13 SCC 744.

6. The respondents have resisted the writ petition by filing reply thereto. Respondent No.1, University Grants Commi