Sanjeev Sachdeva JUDGMENT
Sanjeev Sachdeva, J.
1. The petitioner, by the present petition, seeks a mandamus to the respondents to declare as factually and conceptually incorrect, the answer keys for question Nos. 57, 100 and 107 of the Answer Key Booklet "A" published by respondent No. 2, on 15.03.2016 for National Eligibility Test (NET) for Lectureship held on 20.12.2015 and a further direction to respondent No. 2 to declare the petitioner as qualified for the said examination.
2. During the submissions, learned counsel for the petitioner has restricted his challenge only with regard to question No. 57. It is contended that the question No. 57 had a typographical error and the answer given by the petitioner was correct. Even the respondents initially declared the option given by the petitioner as correct in the first Answer Key published after the examination was held. However, subsequently, the answer key was modified and the answer to the said question No. 57 was changed because of which the result of the petitioner was affected.
3. It is contended that even in the expert report of the respondents, there is an admission that there was a typographical error in the question. It is submitted that if the typographical error was considered, then the answer given by the petitioner was correct and the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the said answer.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that in cases where there was a typographical errors in the questions, the respondents have give benefit of marks to all students who have attempted the said questions irrespective of whether the answer is correct or incorrect.
5. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent submits that in question No. 57, there were four options given. If the question was read as it was printed then one of the options was correct and if the question was read by taking into account the typographical error then another option was correct.
6. It is contended that it was not a case where none of the options given were correct but in either of the two situations one or the other option was correct. The students had to choose the option which was correct as per the question as printed and not as the question should or could have read.
7. It is contended that only in a situation, where all four equations did not satisfy the problem given, the respondent would have treated the same as a typographical error and given benefit to all students who attempted the question irrespective of the answer.
8. Reliance is further placed on the judgment of this Court dated 13.07.2015 in W.P.(C) No. 5719/2015 titled Atul Kumar Verma vs. Union of India & Another, and judgment dated 23.09.2016 in W.P.(C) No. 7750/2016 titled Sagar Sanjeev Dua vs. Central Board of Secondary Education & Ors. to contend that this Court would not go into the exercise of examining the correctness of the answer keys, more so, in view of the fact that an expert body has already examined the same.
9. To resolve the controversy, we will first examine the question No. 57 in issue. Question No. 57 reads as follows:-
" 57. In the following equations

exponential population growth is described by
1. a and b.
2. a only.
3. c only
4. b and d."
10. It is an admitted position that equation (a) describes exponential population growth whereas equation (c) and (d) do not. The dispute is whether equation (b) also describes exponential population growth or not.
11. The contention of the petitioner, is that in equation (b) above, there is a typographical error inasmuch as the equation has been printed as "Nt = Noert" (i.e. N multiplied by t = Noert) whereas the equation given in various text books, as describing the exponential population growth is "Nt = Noe