G.S. Sandhawalia, J.

This judgment shall dispose of CWP-12963, 13239, 13308, 13624, 14090, 15417, 16682, 16906 & 17126-2016, involving common questions of law and facts. However, to dictate orders, facts have been taken from CWP-12963-2016 titled Ravneet Kaur & others Vs. Baba Farid University of Health Sciences, Faridkot & another.

2. The petitioners, who are five in number, challenge the result which has been declared on the basis of the percentile method by the University, allegedly in contravention to the provisions of Clause 8 of the notification dated 10.06.2016 (Annexure P2), issued by the respondent No.2-State, read with Clause 7 of the notification dated 18.03.2016, contained in the prospectus of the Punjab Medical Entrance Test (PMET-2016). Resultantly, writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondents to re-conduct the examination, has been sought, on the ground that the examination was totally vitiated or in the alternative, revise the result on the basis of normalization of the score on merits, of each candidate.

3. The pleaded case of the petitioners is that the respondent-University had conducted a test, i.e., PMET-2016, online with the help of Tata Consultancy Services Pvt. Ltd. on 11.06.2016. The admission to the MBBS/BDS courses, in various institutes in the State of Punjab was to be done from the said test. As per the prospectus (Annexure P1), the minimum of 50% marks in 10+2 was required, as per Clause 5. As per Clause 7 of the same, the minimum eligibility for admission was to be on the basis of the 50% marks in the PMET, 2016 (45% for the handicap quota and 40% for the SC/BC), for the academic session 2016. The notification dated 10.06.2016 had been issued for the admission in the said courses and Clause 6 dealt with the eligibility of the candidates on the basis of the 10+2 examinations whereas Clause 8 provided the minimum of 50% marks in PMET, 2016. The scheduled date, initially, was 15.05.2016 and the result was to be declared on 21.05.2016. However, in view of the judgment of the Apex Court, the respondent-University, in its notice dated 30.04.2016 (Annexure P3) had taken a decision that the admission would be on the basis of the National Eligibility Entrance Test (NEET), 2016 and the fee deposited for PMET, 2016 was to be refunded.

4. In view of the Government of India promulgating the Ordinance and keeping in abeyance the NEET, 2016, the University decided to hold the PMET, 2016, vide notice (Annexure P4) and accordingly, re-scheduled the online examination for 11.06.2016, as per the notice (Annexure P4/A). The said examination was conducted in two shifts, in morning and evening, at various centres, online. The answer keys were uploaded on the website, as per the judgment of this Court in the case of PMET-2015. Out of the total 400 questions, 598 objections were received by the University, as per the notice (Annexure P6), and resort to the percentile method had jeopardised the career of the candidates and upset the merit between the candidates inter se of Paper Set-1 (morning) and paper Set-2(evening). The equality between the candidates in two set of papers and the disparity between the two set of questions and the marks awarded for the number of wrong questions was, accordingly, questioned. The merit on the basis of percentile was alleged to be violating Clause 8 of the notification and Clause 7 of the notification, mentioned in the prospectus. The University had no authority to violate the terms of the prospectus and discriminate between the two classes. The formula for score normalization in the form of percentile, as adopted by the All India Institute of Medical Sciences (AIIMS) and the Jawaharlal Institute for Post-Graduate Medical Education & Research, Pondicherry (JIPMER) had been adopted for normalization of the 2 set of candidates, as per the corrigendum issued on 22.0