ROHIT BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WRIT petition is filed with the following prayers:

(2.) LEARNED Counsel for the Respondent University, inviting reference to the decision of the Supreme Court in Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education V/s. Ayan Das and Ors. (2007) 8 SCC 242, submitted that only if the Petitioners satisfy the court that the model answer is different from what has been adopted by the Moderation Committee, the Court can look into the matter. It was further contended that the Petitioner should be in a position to show that the answers are wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalization. We have no quarrel with this well settled principle. However, it is the contention of the Petitioners that the answers can be demonstrated to be wrong to the extent that no reasonable body of well -versed people in the particular subject would regard them as correct having regard to the position in the authenticated and prescribed text books.

(3.) THE Moderation Committee has made available the report in a sealed cover. We have gone through the records, thus furnished to us by the Moderation Committee.