WP(C) 5010/2009 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner who had appeared in the final M. Tech. (4th Semester) exa mination held on June, 2009 under Dibrugarh University is aggrieved by the marks awarded in the Dissertation paper and also the remarks made by the external exa miner. According to the petitioner, who could secure 64.61% of marks, same would have been even better had there been proper marking in the Dissertation paper. The particular remark in the Dissertation paper given by the external examiner i s as follows: Context of the abstract found to be reproduced from that of the earlier dissert ation submitted by Miss. Minakshi Hazarika in 2005-07. The primary grievance of the petitioner is that the particular external examiner being not M.Tech., was not qualified to be an external examiner for M.T ech. (4th Semester) examination. I have heard Mr. C. Baruah, learned Sr. counsel for the petitioner as we ll as Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Standing counsel, Dibrugarh University. While Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitioner by producing the letter dated 10.11. 09 and the particular clause of Dibrugarh University Examination Ordinance, 1972 , has argued that the external examiner being not qualified to be an examiner, t he Dissertation is required to be re-evaluated through another qualified externa l examiner, Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Standing counsel, Dibrugarh University, subm its that the particular external examiner was duly appointed by departmental man agement committee in its meeting held on 17.06.09. Referring to the minutes of t he said meeting dated 17.06.09, Mr. Agarwal submits that the particular examiner was appointed to deal with the particular Dissertation topic and it is not the case of appointing him only for the purpose of examining the Dissertation submit ted by the petitioner. I have considered the rival submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties and the materials on record. The scope of judicial interference in s uch matters and the limitation thereof need not be emphasised. Needless to say t hat the writ Court exercising the power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, cannot sit on appeal over the findings arrived at by an expert body like an external examiner on a particular topic relating to the p articular course which in the instant case is M. Tech. (Petroleum Exploration an d Production). There is no hard and fast rules that an external examiner must be an M. Tech. Even in the Ordinance on which Mr. Baruah, learned counsel for the petitio ner has placed reliance, the provision made in clause 50 is that no one shall or dinarily be appointed as an examiner unless he possesses teaching experience. As per clause 50 (iii), for Master’s Degree Examination an examiner ordinarily sho uld be a teacher of Post-Graduate classes with 5 (five) years experience. As per proviso (c) of clause 50 of the said Ordinance, the aforesaid qualification c an be dispensed with in respect of any eminent person of outstanding merit with recognised contribution in the subject. In the letter dated 10.11.09 addressed to the petitioner by Oil India Lt d. disclosing the bio-data of the particular expert, it was stated that the said expert is a B.E. in Mechanical Discipline and joined the Oil India Ltd. on 03.1 2.89. As regards the works experience, it was stated that the said expert had at tended technical training on Electrical Submersible Pump held in December, 2007 in Kuala Lumpur and he was also invited by International Training Institute as a guest speaker. Describing his other qualifications, it was intimated as follows: (iii) He is a Member of the Functional committee of OISD-GDN-182 (Recommended S afe procedures & Guidelines for Workover & Well Stimulation Operation) (iv) He is a Member of the Functional committee of OISD for preparation of Recom mended Practice for SRP operation & Maintenance. (v) He has been co-guiding an M. Tech dissertation on Velocity String under Depa rtment of Petroleum Technology, Dibrugarh University session 2007-09. (vi) He had co-guided an M. Tech. dissertation on ESPs under Department of Petr oleum Technology, Dibrugarh University session 2005-07. (vii) He had co-authored a Technical Paper titled An Integrated System Approach for Sand Control and Isolation Repair in a Cased Hole Well - A Case Study for presentation in an International Conference held in ISM, Dhanbad. (viii) Shri Haque is a Member of the Commissioning team for ESPs installation in OIL. Mr. Agarwal, learned counsel for the University has also submitted that the qualification prescribed in clause (50) of the Ordinance is in respect of i nternal examination and theoretical examination, but in practical examination li ke dissertation, the University has taken conscious decision to appoint the part icular expert as the external examiner. From the material on record, it appears that the said examiner has been performing the roll of external examiner from so metime post. It is worth mentioning that even in the case of Minakshi Hazarika, another student of M. Tech. course and who has cleared the said course in the ye ar 2005-07, in her Dissertation published he was the co-guide. It is the said Di ssertation from which the particular extract was extracted by the examiner towar ds the aforesaid comment made by the said external examiner. Thus, it cannot be said that it was only in the case of the petitioner the said expert was engaged. For all the aforesaid reasons, I do not find any merit in the writ petit ion, and accordingly it is dismissed.