present case and in that case, the Supreme Court was dealing with the interpretation of standards prescribed by the statutory professional technical bodies. But in the instant case, this Court has adjudicated two cases in favour of the students i.e. Dr.P.Kishore Kumar,s case (1 supra) and Dr. J.Kiraa Kumar,s case (2 supra) and the said judgments were a.lso confirmed by a Division Bench of this Court. No regulations were furnished by the appellants to examine whether the directions given by the learned Single Judge are contrary to the regulations framed by the appellantsUniversity or National Medical Commission When the answer scripts of the students are scanned into four copies, then the four examiners ,,i ill have to affix their signatures after evaluating the answer scripts. The apprehension of the appellants that if the examiners affixed their signatures and disclosed the marks and if the same paper is handed to next examiner, the second examiner would be influenced by the marks awarded by the first examiner has no substance because as per the digital evaluation, the arrswer scripts are to be scanned into four copies ald the aaswer scripts have to be independently distributed to the each examiner so as to enable the examiners to evaluate the answer scripts and award marks and after evaluation of the marks, the examiner has to affix his signature, then only there would be transparency. Looking from arly angle, this Court is not inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed in the
