IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.790 of 2008 ***** Sanjay Kumar @ Sanjay Kr. Mallick, son of late Satish Chandra Mallick, resident of village/Mohalla – Basera colony Barhatta Road, P.S. Leheriasarai, District – Darbhanga. …. ….. Petitioner/Appellant. Versus 1. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Patna. 2. The Controller of Examination, Patna University, Patna. 3. The Registrar, Patna University, Patna. 4. The Deen, Department of law, Patna University. …. ….. Respondent/Respondent. ----------- For the Appellant : Mr. Md. Khurshid Alam, Advocate ---------- P R E S E N T Hon'ble the Chief Justice & Hon'ble Mr. Justice Kishore K. Mandal ----------- Dated, the 7th November, 2008. The petitioner appeared in Part-I examination of LL. M. held in the year 2004. The result of the said examination was published in the year 2005. The petitioner applied for re-evaluation/scrutiny of two subjects i.e. Legal Theory and Jurisprudence and Legal History. According to the petitioner, despite application for re-evaluation/scrutiny having been made, no steps were taken. Aggrieved thereby he filed an appeal before the Vice Chancellor and when nothing was done, he approached this Court. 2. In response to the writ petition, a counter affidavit was filed by the University, wherein stand was taken that the Regulations do not provide for re-evaluation and in so far as scrutiny is concerned, the same was done and the marks allotted to the petitioner in these two papers were - 2 - found to be correct. 3. The Single Judge was persuaded by the submission of the University and dismissed the writ petition. 4. The counsel for the appellant would not dispute that there was any provision in the Regulations for re-evaluation of the answer- sheets. The provision provides for scrutiny only. The stand of the University that scrutiny was done and the marks allotted to the petitioner-appellant in the two papers were found correct does not deserve rejection as there is nothing to hold otherwise. Once the scrutiny was done, obviously, no further scrutiny was permissible nor could have been done again. As a matter of fact, the result of scrutiny seems to have been displayed on the notice board in the year 2006. 5. We find no merit in the appeal, it is dismissed in limine. R. M. Lodha, CJ Kishore K. Mandal, J Pawan/-