IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD TUESDAY, THE NINETEENTH DAY OF AUGUST TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE SRI ANIL R. DAVE, THE CHIEF JUSTICE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR WRIT APPEAL NO : 859 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 07/07/2008 in WP NO : 11757 OF 2008 on the file of the High Court.) Between: M. Rasaghnya Chowdary, D/o. Ravindra Babu, R/o. B-1/472, R & B Quarters, ZP Road, Kadapa, Kadapa District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 Government Of Andhra Pradesh Rep.by its Principal Secretary, Secretariat Buildings, Hyderabad. 2 Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences Vijayawada, Krishna District, Rep.by its Vice-Chancellor 3 Dr.NTR University of Health Sciences Vijayawada, Krishna District Rep.by its Registrar 4 S.V. Medical College Tirupati, Chittoor District, Rep.by its Principal .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR.P.VENUGOPAL Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : JUDGMENT: (Per Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the order dated 7-7-2008 passed in W.P.No. 11757 of 2008, this appeal has been filed. The appellant-petitioner is a student of Medicine. She was aggrieved by the marks awarded to her in two subjects in the examination. It was the case of the appellant-petitioner before the learned Single Judge that evaluation of her answer scripts was not proper. The learned Single Judge had called for the answer scripts to the Court and it is an admitted fact that the appellant-petitioner was permitted to see the answer scripts so as to ﬁnd out whether any answer attempted by her was not evaluated. It was ultimately found that each and every answer written by the candidate had been evaluated and even thereafter the result was not changed. Moreover, it has been submitted by the learned Advocate appearing for the respondent that it was also veriﬁed by a committee of two Professors to ﬁnd out whether each and every answer written by the candidate had been evaluated. The committee found that each and every answer had been duly evaluated. For the aforestated reasons, the learned Single Judge rejected the petition, as he did not ﬁnd any substance in the petition. Upon hearing the learned Advocate for the appellant and in view of the Judgment delivered by a Division Bench of this Court in Mullah Taher Ali v. Registrar, NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada[1], we are of the view that the learned Single Judge has rightly rejected the petition. Even the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed in the case in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth[2] that unless the statutory regulations provide for veriﬁcation of the answer scripts or for revaluation, Courts cannot order for revaluation. For the aforestated reasons, we also do not ﬁnd any substance in the appeal. The appeal stands dismissed with no order as to costs. ______________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 19th August, 2008. ______________________________ VILAS V. AFZULPURKAR, J GRR [1] 2006 (2) ALT 7 (DB) [2] AIR 1984 SC 1543