IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) MONDAY, THE TWENTY FOURTH DAY OF JANUARY TWO THOUSAND AND FIVE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE N.V. RAMANA WRIT PETITION NO : 534 of 2005 Between: Somayajula Raja Chakradhar S/o.Narasimhamurhty D.No.1390,Saradha Nagar, Chillakuru Village&Mandal, Nellore Dist. ..... PETITIONER AND The Controller of Examination S.V.University, Thirupathi,Chittoor Dist. .....RESPONDENT Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction declaring the action of the respondent in not revaluating the answer papers of the petitioner as per the procedure prescribed for revaluation through the other university personal as illegal and arbitrary and consequently direct the respondent to send the answer paper of the petitioner to the other university and got revaluated through the other university personals and allow the petitioner for his personal verification of his answer papers, and pass such other or further order or orders. Counsel for the Petitioner: MR.P.GANGA RAMI REDDY Counsel for the Respondent: MR.P.SREE RAMULU NAIDU The Court at the admission stage made the following: ORDER: The present writ petition is filed challenging the action of the respondent in not following the procedure in sending the answer papers of the petitioner to other university for revaluation. The petitioner, in his affidavit filed in support of the petition, alleges that he appeared for B.Ed. examination through the respondent university and he got first division in the practical examination and second division in theory examination. That the petitioner is confident of securing first class in theory also, had applied for revaluation of answer papers. The grievance of the petitioner is that the respondent university has not followed the procedure in sending the answer papers to other university for revaluation. Hence, the writ petition. Heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned standing Counsel appearing for the respondent. Both counsel agreed for disposal of the writ petition at the admission stage. The petitioner in nutshell challenges the procedure followed by the respondent University in revaluating the answer script. However, the petitioner has not chosen to file such material prescribing the norms for revaluation of the answer scripts. Except making an averment that the answer papers should be sent to another University, no material was filed in support of said contention. As per the version of the petitioner, his theory paper was revalued and the results were also declared. For the foregoing reasons, I do not see any merit in the writ petition warranting interference by this Court in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No costs. ____________ N.V.RAMANA,J Dated: 24.01.2005 Dsr/Tvk To: 1. The Controller of Examination S.V.University, Thirupathi,Chittoor District 2. Two CD copies Form-NIC-OGS/WP{MVK}