JUDGMENT S.K. Singh, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
2. Grievance of the petitioner in this petition is that he has been given less marks than his expectation. The expectation of the petitioner is on the basis of his self-analysis. The answer sheets are examined by the expert examiners and thereafter there is provision of scrutiny. On the basis of self-assessment, every candidate may come before the Court with submission that he should have been awarded a particular mark that cannot be accepted.
3. The aforesaid view is supported by the decision in 1984 (Supp) SCC 372, wherein it was held that :
"Students who fail in their examinations are generally prone to make allegations that the assessment of their answer scripts is defective, arbitrary or partial to explain their failure and to console themselves with the thought that not they but the examiners are to be blamed for that. There being no positive materials before this Court that the examiners were actuated by any malice or negligence or any other consideration for which the petitioner was given lesser marks than which he actually deserved. It appears that there is hardly any basis for the allegation made by the petitioner that her papers were not properly re-examined merely because she obtained higher marks in her examination by "different board".
4. Reference can be given to another decision as has been given in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarasheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543, wherein it was held that :
"a process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks does not attract the principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse evil consequences to a examinee is involved. The principle of natural Justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd length as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performance or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answer by the examiners.
It was further held in this decision that it is in the public interest that the result of public examination when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection and 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.
It was further held in the Instant case that the Court should be reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and, proper in relation 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."
5. Considering the aforesaid decision of Apex Court Division Bench of Calcutta High Court in the decision of Miss Srumoyu Ghosh. v. State of W. B. and Ors., AIR 1996 Cal 1 held that:
"Contention of a candidate that he has obtained good marks in the earlier examinations and in the present examination as well he expects more marks cannot be a ground either for revaluation or for screening his answer sheet."
6. In view of the aforesaid, no interference is required. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed.