F- HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATriSGARH .•BII.ASPUR SINGLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. WR1T PETITION No.3166 OF 2006 PETITIONER ShruU Chandrakar, Age 18 Yre. D/o Dr. A.K.Chandrakar, R/o F-2, Pension Bada, Raipur Vereus RESPONDENTS 1. StateofChhattisgarh Through, Secretery, Deptt. Of Medical Education, DKfi Rhauas^ Rainyr(e.G.) 2. ww. Medicai Eduratkm, Go'.'t- ofCG, Distt. Raipur 3. ChhatBsgarti F'rofessional Examinafon Board, Through Controtter of Exams Situate at C/168, Tagore Nagar, Ralpur (C.G.) Present: Shri Raja Sharma, learnedcounsel for the petitioner. Shri Yashwant Singh, leamed Govt. Adv. fortheState. ORALORD6R (Passed on 3"'July, 2006) The grievance of the petitioner, in brief, is ttwrt har academie performances have been extraordinarily very good and consldent whereas in the Pre Medical Test she has been awarded marte which work out to 78% only. It is the considered setf asse^ment <rf the petitioner that she in fact deserved more marks than what has been awarded. In the above premise, the p^itioner hassought tw a dlrectton to the 3 respondent i.e. Chhattisgarh Professtonal Examination Board to produce entire records pertaining to the Pre Medical Test with answer sheet, to allow the petitioner to inspectand verify her answer sheet and model answer, to get the revaluation of the petitioner's answer scripts and to revise the merit list after such revaluation. The relirts sought cannot be granted. It is well setUed by the judgment of the Supreme Bycyak -a.- Court in Uie case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary EducaUon and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarshedi and several other judgments to (bllow that unless the rules and regulations governing an examlnatfon proivide for revaluation of the answer scrjpte or inspecUon of the answw scripts by the candidate, tte Court would not jusUfy in issuing diredions to an academlc body to revalue answer scripts. Be that as it may, the petiUoner has not laid any allegatton of mala ffde against the examining body or examiners who assessed her answer scripts. The self assessment made by the petitioner about her perfbrmance could hardly be a valid ground for the Court to grant the kind of reliefesought by the petitioner. No ground is made out for entertaining this writ petition. The petition fails and it is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Sd./- ChiefJustice 1. AIR 1984 SC 1543