JUDGMENT S.N. Srivastava, J.
1. In the relief column, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to produce the entire answer books of II, III and IV papers of M. Sc. (Bio-chemistry) and further a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to give the correct marks on the answer book of the petitioner
2. A brief resume of necessary fact is that the petitioner who had appeared in M. Sc final year examination from Allahabad University with Bio-chemistry as a subject secured 70 marks out of 100 in Intermediary Metabolism, 53 out of 100 in Molecular Cellular biology, 55 out of 100 in Microbiology and Immunology, and 52 out of 100 in Biochemistry of Health and Disease and Research Methodology. The aggregate marks obtained by the petitioner was 294 marks out of 500. The petitioner filed the petition with the allegations that he had swotted hard in all subjects and had answered all questions very correctly and further that: he should have been awarded much higher marks in the aforesaid subjects.
3. On 27.7.2006, this Court passed the following order-
In view of serious allegations, I direct counsel for the University to produce answer books alongwith question paper of all the subjects/papers of M.Sc final year Biochemistry on 11th August 2006.
The answer scripts have been produced by the learned Counsel for the University today alongwith reports of Prof. Dr. Dwijendra K. Gupta, Head, Department of Bio-chemistry, University of Allahabad separately under sealed covers. It would appear from a perusal of the reports submitted separately for each of the papers that there is no change in the tally of marks. This Court had also a glance through the answer scripts. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was also shown the answer scripts and she seemed to be convinced that there was no error In computing/totaling of marks and further there is no question left un-evaluated or unmarked by the examiner but at the same time, she vociferously pressed the demand to conduct re-evaluation of the answer scripts stating that the petitioner has been a victim of very hard-marking. The learned Counsel also prayed for compassionate view regard being had to the bright future ahead of the petitioner. Per contra, learned Counsel for the University vehemently opposed re-evaluation drawing attention of the Court to the fact that there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer book. He also drew attention of the Court to the fact that there is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and. It was also pointed out that the marks have been noted correctly on the cover age of the answer book which would be borne out from the reports of the Head of the Department, there is no change in the status of the marks from a close scrutiny of the answer scripts no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court.
4. In connection with submission for re-evaluation of the answer scripts, a very recent decision of the Apex Court may be noted with approval. This decision has been rendered on 6.8.2004 in Appeal (Civil) 5046 of 2004 in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman/ Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors. In this case, a similar relief for re-evaluation of the answer scripts had been sought on the self same ground that the petitioner of that case had secured very good marks in all the papers and had also answered the questions in General Science paper correctly and therefore, he should have been awarded much higher marks in the said paper. In the aforesaid case, learned Single Judge of Patna High Court directed re-evaluation of the answer book of the appellant in General Science paper and In fresh evaluation, the appellant was awarded 63 marks as against 35 marks. In consequence, the learned Single Judge allowed the writ petition and direction was issued to the Commission to reconsider the case treating his marks in General science paper as 63. The Apex Court held as under:
The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks.
5. The Apex Court also relied upon a decision of the Apex Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth and Ors. . In the said decision, the Apex Court held that"If was perfectly within the competence of the hoard, rather within the competence of the Board, rather it was its plain duty, to apply its mind and decide as a matter of policy relating to the conduct of the examination as to whether disclosure and inspection of the answer books should be allowed to the candidates whether and to what extent verification of the result should be permitted after the results have already been announced and whether any right to claim revaluation of the answer books should be recognized or provided for. All these are undoubtedly matter which have an intimate nexus with the objects and purposes of the enactment and are, therefore, within the ambit of the general power to make regulations covered under Sub-section (1) of Section 36 of the Maharasthra Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations (1977)".
6. In para 2.6 of the said decision the Apex Court held as under:
What constitutes fair play depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. If it is found that every possible precaution has been taken and all necessary safeguards provided to ensure that the answer books inclusive of supplements are kept in safe custody so as to eliminate the danger of their being tampered with and that the evaluation is done by the examiners applying uniform standards with checks and cross checks at different stages and that measures for detection of malpractice etc have also been effectively adopted in such cases it will not be correct on the part of the Courts to strike down the provision prohibiting revaluation on the ground that it violates the rules of fair play....
7. In para 27 of the said decision, the Apex Court also observed:
Further, it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.
8. Lastly, the Apex court held that the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relating to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day to day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.
9. Reverting to the instant case, from a perusal of the report submitted by Head of the Department, it is crystal clear that there is no change in the status of the marks and therefore, no ground is made out for ordering re-evaluation particularly regard being had to the fact that there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer book but there is a provision for scrutiny only. From the report it is clear that there is no error in checking of marks and it would further appear that all the answers given by the petitioner have been examined and also further that there is no mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and the same have been correctly noted on the cover page of the answer books.
10. In the above conspectus, the petition being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed.