On or about 18th May, 2015 the Expert Committee gave its Report to which the appellants filed objections.
On 12th May, 2014 the Board published the final select list of candidates who had qualified in the written examination as well as in the interview.
In some other Special Appeal filed by a candidate, it was stated by the Board on 11 th April, 2012 that the answer sheets of all the candidates would be re evaluated in the light of the judgment of the learned Single Judge.
The appellants before us were number affected by the re evaluation of the written examination and companytinued in the select list.
Following up on this, the judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge was implemented on 10th September, 2012 and the re evaluated results of the written examination of all candidates were declared.
The challenge made by the writ petitioners was to seven questions answers in the written examination which, according to them, had incorrect key answers.
Some candidates who were number successful in the written examination or in the interview filed writ petitions in the Allahabad High Court between 2010 and 2011.
As a result of the re evaluation, it appears that some candidates, who were declared successful in the companybined result declared on 14th September, 2010 were number declared unsuccessful.
442 of 2012 before the Division Bench of the High Court.
While companysidering this, the following cautionary measures were suggested .it is necessary to numbere that the University and those who prepare the key answers have to be very careful and abundant caution is necessary in these matters for more than one reason.
Some candidates also preferred Special Appeals directed against the judgment and order dated 8th February, 2012.
She then filed a writ petition in the Patna High Court and the learned Single Judge called for her answer sheets and on a perusal thereof and on companyparing her answers with the model or key answers companycluded that she deserved an additional two marks.
The Division Bench heard all the review petitions as well as the appeals and passed an order dated 28th April, 2015 referring the seven disputed questions answers for companysideration by a one man Expert Committee.
Another batch of writ petitions having 77 writ petitioners came to be listed before another learned Single Judge of the High Court.
Eventually, by the judgment and order dated 2nd November, 2015 the Division Bench directed a fresh evaluation of the answer sheets on the basis of the Report of the Expert Committee.
All these writ petitions were dismissed by a learned Single Judge.
Feeling aggrieved by the decision of the learned Single Judge, the Board preferred Special Appeal No.
Thereafter, a set of petitions was filed including some before this Court and eventually it came to pass that those aggrieved by the order passed by the Division Bench on 13th March, 2012 companyld file review petitions.
The 2005 13 SCC 744 A. Nos.367 of 2017 etc.
Page 5 of 21 Special Appeal filed by the Board was dismissed by a Division Bench of the High Court on 13th March, 2012.
