WP(C) 4742/2010 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE B.P.KATAKEY Heard Mr KK Mahanta, learned senior counsel for the petitioners as well as Mr LP Sarma, learned standing counsel for the Gauhati University, appearing f or the respondents. The petitioners, who appeared in the LL.M. Part-I Examination in the yea r 2009, by the present petition, have prayed for a direction to the respondent U niversity to re-evaluate their answer scripts of the Paper-V i.e. the Hindu Law again, basically contending that though they did well in the said paper, they we re given much lesser marks than what they had expected, for which though they fi led an application in accordance with the relevant rules for re-evaluation, the marks were decreased on such exercise. The petitioners’ further contention in th e writ petition is that some other candidates who sought for re-evaluation of th e said Paper, were awarded more marks on re-evaluation. Keeping in view the aforesaid contention, the Court vide order dated 25t h August 2010 directed the learned standing counsel for the respondent Universit y to produce the relevant answer scripts, which were produced today by the learn ed standing counsel. It appears from the averments made in the writ petition that the petitio ners claim that they expected more marks on re-evaluation as they did well in th e examination. There is no denial, and in fact the admitted position of fact tha t under the relevant rules the re-evaluation was done and on such exercise they were allotted the marks. To ascertain the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioners that there was arbitrariness in the matter of re-evaluation, I h ave scrutinized the answer scripts wherefrom it appears that the re-evaluating a uthority after properly re-evaluating the scripts awarded the marks. The marks a warded by the examiner, on the ground of mere expectation of the petitioners, ca nnot be interfered with by the Court. The other contention that other candidates got more marks on re-evaluation, cannot be the basis for issuance of the direct ion sought for. In view of the aforesaid position, I do not find any merit in the presen t writ petition to direct further re-evaluation of the answer scripts, which is also not permissible under the relevant rules. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs.