THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY WRIT PETITION No.25009 of 2009 Order: This writ petition is filed for a mandamus to declare the action of respondent No.1 in not properly evaluating the petitioner’s answer script of Engineering Graphics of First year of Mechanical Engineering course and declaring the petitioner as ‘failed’ by awarding only 21 marks out of 100 as illegal and arbitrary. I have heard Sri G. Venkat Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Deepak Bhattacharjee, learned Standing Counsel representing respondent Nos. 1 and 2. The petitioner, a student of respondent No.3-college is pursing his B.Tech., course in Mechanical Engineering. He appeared for the first year final examinations of the said course in May, 2009. According to the petitioner, he was awarded 21 marks out of 100 in the subject of ‘Engineering Graphics’. The petitioner has applied for revaluation/recounting of the marks. As no information was received from the respondents on his application referred to above, he filed the present writ petition. The petitioner pleaded that he is a bright and meritorious student having secured 85% of marks in all other subjects in the first year examinations and that on account of defective valuation of the answer paper, in the above mentioned subject, he was awarded low marks. Having regard to the apprehensions expressed by the petitioner about the manner of evaluation, this Court, by order dated 18.11.2009 directed the respondents to produce the petitioner’s answer sheet. Accordingly, today, the learned Standing Counsel placed before the Court the answer sheet along with the revaluation statement. A perusal of this material shows that the petitioner was originally awarded 16 marks. The answer sheet of the petitioner along with others were referred to two separate subject experts, Mr.G. Balaraju and Mr. S. Krishna. In the re-valuation made by Sri G. Balaraju, the petitioner was awarded 16 marks; while in the revaluation made by Sri S. Krishna, he was awarded 14 marks. At the hearing, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that his client was informed by the Professor, who evaluated the answer sheet that the petitioner was entitled to award of 70 marks. This contention is not supported by any averment made in his affidavit nor any material filed in support thereof, such as the affidavit filed by the Professor, who evaluated the petitioner’s answer sheet. Ordinarily, this Court exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India does not sit in appeal over the valuation undertaken by the University. It is only for the purpose of prima facie satisfaction of this Court that no patent irregularities have taken place in the evaluation of the subjects that the answer sheets are summoned in appropriate cases. From the material placed by the Standing Counsel, this Court is satisfied that the petitioner’s answer sheet has been re-examined by two subject experts, who, as noted above, have given almost identical marks. Therefore, I do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of main petition, WPMP No.32567 of 2009 filed by the petitioner for interim relief is disposed of as infructuous. __________________________ C.V. NAGARJUNA REDDY,J DATE: 13th July, 2010 pnb