HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ. •inN PETiTIONER: Arun Kumar, aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Stephan Lakra, R/o Baglcha, Tahsi! Bagicha, District Jashpur'(C.G.) At present residing at Karbala Road, Juna Bilaspur, Dtetrict Mlaspur(C.G.). 1. Guru Ghasl Das Univers'ity, Through-Registrar, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. The Registrar, Guru Ghasi Das University, Bilaspur (C.G.). W.P.No. 5516 OF 2008 Akash Swarnakar, aged about 22 years, S/o Shri Ramesh Kumar Swarnakar, ,R/o Narmada Nagar, Tahsi! & District Biiaspur (C.G.). Versus 1. Guru Ghasi Das University, Through-Ragistrar, Bilaspur (C.G.). 2. The Registrar, Guru Ghasi Un'rversity, Biiaspur (C.G.). Sunil Kumar Sen, aged about 23 years, S/o Shri J.L. Sen, R/o Shukia Servtoe Station, Capitai Road, Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur (C.G.) at present residing at near "-<w-S^A^nfctfA?t?yhriS Jeet Talkies, Biiaspur, Tahsil and District Biiaspur (C.G.). Versus Guru Ghasi Das University, Through-Registrar, Bilaspur (C.G.). The Registrar, Guru Ghasi Das University, Bilaspur (C.G.). Ram Singh Rathore, aged years, S/o Shri J.P. Rathore TeSipara, Nandu Garage GaS BiSaspur, Tahsil & District .3, PET1TIONER: 1. 2. 13 1. 2. Versus Guru Ghasi Das University, Through-Registrar, Bilaspur (C.G.). The Registrar, Guru Ghasi Das University, Biiaspur (C.G.). Smt. Wi. Asha, aged about 35 years, W/o Shri M. Hari Prasad Rao, R/o Amba Apartment, Tikrapara, Shivaji Marg, Bilaspur, Tahsil & District Biiaspur (C.G.). Versus Guru Ghasi Das University, Through-Registrar, Bilaspur (C.G.). The Registrar, Guru Ghasi Das University, Bilaspur (C.G.). Present: Shri Ashok Swarnakar, learned counsel for the petitioners. ORAL ORDER BR (Passed on 8"' November, 200S) The petitioners In all these writ pstitions are pursuing three years degree course leading to LL.B. Degree in K. R. Law Collage, Bilaspur (C.G.). During the academic session 2005-06, the petitioners appeared for LL.B. Part-i examination. When the resulfs were deciared, it was found that a!! of them failed in the subject of Constitutiona! Law. The petitioners applied for revaluation of their answer scripts in Constitutiona! Law as provided under the regulations framed by Guris Ghasi Das University. Even after the revaluation, they were deciared to have failed in the subject of Constitutionai Law. Under these cireumstances, these writ petitions are filed prayer for quashing of the revaluation results and So direct the respondenfs-University authoTities to again revalue/recheck the answer scripts of the petitioners in paper-IV i.e. Constitutional Law. (2) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner. (3) it was contended that it was totally unnatural that even after the revaluation of the answer sc-ript of the petitioners in paper-IV i.e. the ConsSltutionai Law, there woutd not be any variance In the marks secured by the petitioner-students. That was the only contention urged before the Court by learned counsel for the petitioners. (4) The writ petitions are liable to be dismissed in limine inasmuch as the regulations framed by the respondent-university do not provide for revaluation of the revalued answer scripts. It is well settled by the judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Vi/CfS Shupesh Kurmarsheth etc.1 and several other judgments io follow, the revaiuation of the answer scripts cannot be ordered unless regulations framed by fhe Universities or the Boards, as the case may be, provide for the same. Since the regulations framed by the respondenVuniversity do not provide for revaiuation of the revalued answer scripts, issuing mandamus to the respondents - university authorities to revalue again the answer scripts of the petitioners in ths subject of Constitutiona! Law would not arise. The contention of the counsel for the petitioner that it is highly incredsble not to find any variance even after the revaluation of the answer scripts, is required to be noticed on!y to be rejected. !f the first valuation made by the examiner is correct, generaily speaking, there will noS be any variance even after revaluation. Nothing is laid before the CQurt to bring home any mala ficfe, factua! or legai, against any named examsner of the answer scripts. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the assessment made by the university authorities who are supposed to be the experts in the fietd. The Courts are very siow in interfering with academic matters. Looking from any angie, no case is made out for the Court to interfere with the assessment made by the university examiners in revaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioners-students in Paper-IV t.e, the Constitutionai Law. The writ petitions are devoid of merit and they are accordingly dismissed. No Sd'- ChiefJustice 1. AIR1984 SC 1543 ^ttr-