IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE TWENTY SECOND DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE B.SESHASAYANA REDDY WRIT PETITION NO : 14408 of 2008 Between: Mr. Samba Sathya Sai Kumar S/o S. Venkatesh R/o H. No. 7-45/2, Shankarnagar Colony, Uppal Depot, Uppal, RangaReddy District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 The State Board Technical Education and Training Hyderabad rep by its Secretary, urgula Ramakrishna Rao Government Offices Building, 7th Floor, C&D Blocks, Tank bund Road, Hyderbad. 2 The Convenor E-Cet (FDH)-2008, JNT University, Kukatpally, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue a writ or order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the 1st respondent in issuing the impugned Memo No. SBTET/EE-I-20/RECOUNTING/08, dated 16-06-2008 as illegal arbitrary untenable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and consequently direct the 1st respondent to revaluate the answer script i.e., code 602, construction Technology and Valuation, 6th semester, Diploma in Civil Engineering and pass such other order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.G.TUHIN KUMAR Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : ORDER This writ petition has been filed by Samba Sathya Sai Kumar with a prayer to issue writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of writ of Mandamus declaring the action of the State Board Technical Education and Training-1st respondent in issuing the impugned memo No.SBTET/EE-I- 20/Recounting/08, dated 16.6.2008 as arbitrary, illegal and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The relief sought for in this writ petition is re-valuation of subject code No.602, Construction, Technology and Valuation. When the writ petition came up for admission on 7.7.2008, a direction was given to the respondent to produce answer script of the petitioner. In compliance of the said direction, learned standing counsel appearing for the 1st respondent produced the answer script of the petitioner and the petitioner has been permitted to go through the answer script. After going through the answer script, neither the petitioner nor the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, is able to point out any errors in totaling the marks secured by the petitioner. As seen from the answer script, all the answers of the petitioner have been evaluated. It has been held by the decision of this Court in Mullah Ther Ali vs. Registrar, NTR University of Health Sciences, Vijayawada that in the absence of any statutory provision for revaluation of answer scripts, Court cannot order for revaluation on doubts expressed by the candidates. In that view of the matter, I do not see any substance in the contention of the petitioner that the answer script of the petitioner has not been properly evaluated. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. __________ 22-07-2008 Note: Answer script of the petitioner is returned to the learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents. rkk