/.F./?, ^7 HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri S.R. Nayak, CJ PETITIONER Writ Petition No. 6163 OF 2005 Sanjeev Kumar Sahu Aged about 22 years S/o Shri Meghraj Sahu R/oQr.No.2BStreet12 Sector 6, Bhilai Nagar District Durg (C.G.) RESPONDENTS Versus 1. 2. 3. Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya through Registrar, Raipur (C.G.) Vice Chancellor Indira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Raipur (C.G.) Dean Bhartiya Krishi College Durg (C.G.) Present: Mr.Rahi.il Jha, learned counsel for the petitioner. ORAL ORDER (Passed on 6th of D&cember 2005) The petitioner is a student of the couree leading to B.Sc (Agriculture) degree and he is studying ih second year. He appeared for the examination in the subject called EMA-11 1 (Engineering Mathematics) in the main examination of first semester (odd semester) and he secured 26 marks out of 50 marks. The petitioner thinking that his answer script inthe subject EMA-111 (Engineering Mathematics) was not properly assessed, sought revaluation of the answer script in the said subject. After the revaluation of his answer script in the subject EIVIA-11 1 (Engineering Mathematics), he secured 20 marks out of -2-- ^:', 50 marks, thereby he was declared faited in the subject. In the circumstance, he has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying for a direction to the respondents to declare the petitioner passed in the subject of EMA-111 (Engineering Mathematics). The petitioner has also sought for a direction to the respondents to produce his answer script before the Court. (2) i have heard learned counsel for the petitioner. !t was contended that the petitioner did very well in the subject of EK4E-111 (Engineering Mathematics) and that he could not have been given 20 marks out of50 marks under any circumstance. (3) It is quite often said and reiterated by the Courts that in academic matters, the Courts should be very siow to interfere with the affairs of the University and the decisionsand assessment of academic bodies. It is not the case of the petitioner that the person who revalued the answer script in the Subject of EMA-111 (Engineering Mathematics) was biased against him or that he deliberately and vindictively has given less marks than what the petitioner has actualty deserved. The self-assessment of the petitioner that he should get »Whmore marks than 20 out of 50 marks is of no significance and is wholly irrelevant to the decision-making. The petitioner cannot be a Judge of his own cause. His knowledge and performance in the e)fflmination is to be tested by the University Authorities. (4) Learned counsei for the petitioner wouia' strenuously contend that the Court atleast summon the ansvi/er script and peruse the same. There is no need for this Court to peruse the answer script. It is not the case of the petitioner that the marks awarded by the examinsr are not added-up properly. His specific grievance is that the answer script is not correctly assessed. Be •j-^t^y that as it may, it is fairly well settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court starting from the Judgment in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmareheth etc. (AIR 1984 S.C.-1543) that it is not the right of any student who appears for an examination aither to seek re-totalling of the marks obtajned by him or revaluation of the answsr script unless Uie rules and regulations provide for it. The High Court is not an expert to assess the answer script in the subject of EMA-111(Engineering Mathematics). The assessment of answer script in the subject of EMA-111 (Engineering Mathematics) is verymuch within the domain of the expert in that discipline. The High Court by merely pemsing the answer script would not be in a position to decide whether the answer script is properly assessed or not. Lastly, learned counsel would request that he may be permitted to make a representation to the respondents. It is forthe rsspondents to consider the representation, if such representation is made, but the Court woutd not be justified either in permitting the petitioner to make representation or directing the respondents to consider such representation, because, no law is brought to the notice of the Court which •enables the petitioner to make a representation in a situation like this and which obliges the respondente to consider such representation as a matter of legal obligation. In the result, the writ petition is devoid of merit and it is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Sd/.. ChiefJustice