IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) THURSDAY, THE ELEVENTH DAY OF MARCH TWO THOUSAND AND TEN PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY Writ Petition No.5679 of 2010 Between: T.Sai ..... Petitioner AND The Board of Intermediate Education, Rep. by its Secretary, Nampally, Hyderabad. .....Respondent Counsel for the Petitioner: Mrs.Bobba Vijayalakshmi Counsel for Respondent: Kum.C.Sindhu Kumari The Court made the following: Order: This Writ Petition is filed for a Mandamus to declare the action of the respondent, in not re-verifying the Physics paper-II of the petitioner in the Instant examination of May/June, 2009 conducted by the respondent-Board, as arbitrary and illegal. The petitioner sought for a consequential direction to the respondent to get his Physics paper-II answer script re- verified with an independent examiner and to declare him as having passed in the said paper. I have heard Sri J.Sudheer, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Smt.C.Sindhu Kumari, learned Standing Counsel for the respondent and perused the record. The petitioner appeared for Intermediate examination conducted by the Board of Intermediate Education in the month of March, 2009. He failed in physics Paper-II examination as he secured only 12 marks. The petitioner has appeared for the Instant examination conducted by the respondent in the month of May/June, 2009. Even in the said examination also, the petitioner has secured only 15 marks against 21 marks prescribed as pass marks. The petitioner applied for re-verification of marks by paying the prescribed fees. Re-verification was, accordingly, done and the petitioner claimed to have been furnished with a xerox copy of the answer book. Even in the re- verification, the marks earlier awarded were not altered. Therefore, the petitioner filed the present Writ Petition. The plea of the petitioner in this Writ Petition is two fold viz., (1) There are certain corrections in respect of the marks awarded for the answers to questions Nos.9 and 21 and; (2) the examiner has not awarded any marks for the answer to question No.15 though the same was correct. At the hearing, Sri J.Sudheer, learned Counsel for the petitioner, reiterated the above two pleas. I have carefully examined the xerox copy of the answer sheet filed by the petitioner. A careful perusal of the answer sheet shows that for the answer to question No.9, the examiner has awarded two marks and again, he has struck it off and awarded one mark. Similarly, for the answer to question No.21, six marks were awarded twice and again they were struck off and finally, 5 marks were awarded. The same corrections were reflected in the first page of the answer book showing the marks awarded for each answer in a tabular form. The learned Counsel for the petitioner fairly conceded that even after the marks, as were originally sought to be given, are added, the petitioner will not get the pass marks of 21. Therefore, in my opinion, these corrections did not materially alter the result. With respect to the second plea, the learned Counsel for the petitioner placed reliance on the judgments of the Supreme Court in Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education vs Ayan Das and others[1] and President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another[2]. I n Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (1st cited supra), the candidate, who appeared for higher secondary examination conducted by West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education, filed a Writ Petition for a direction to the Council to produce answer scripts in several papers. The answer scripts were produced on the directions given by the Court and later, the learned single Judge directed to preserve the answer scripts and to issue fresh mark sheet incorporating in English Paper-I, the additional marks which, it transpired during the inspection, were not awarded to him for the correct answer. Accordingly, fresh mark sheet was issued. Subsequently, the learned Judge directed that the original answer sheet be re-assessed by another examiner. The Council unsuccessfully questioned the said order before the Division Bench and approached the Supreme Court by raising the contention that there is no provision of re-assessment of answer sheet and therefore, the High Court committed an error in giving such a direction. The Supreme Court accepted the said contention of the Council and set aside the judgments of the High Court. I n President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (2nd cited supra), the High Court of Orissa, finding that at the time of verification in one paper, marks were wrongly shown as 35 as against 65, declined to order for re-valuation on the ground that there is no scope for re-valuation in the absence of a provision therefor and directed payment of Rs.20,000/- for the negligence of the Board in not properly awarding the marks. The Board has filed an appeal against imposition of costs. While allowing the appeal and setting aside the costs, the Supreme Court reiterated the settled legal principle that re-valuation cannot be ordered unless a provision to that effect exists. In my opinion, the ratio of the above judgments of the Supreme Court instead of helping the petitioner constitutes sound basis for rejecting his pleas. It is not the case of the petitioner that there is a provision of re- valuation. In the absence of such a provision, it is not permissible for the petitioner to seek re-valuation on the ground that the examiner has not properly valued his answer sheet. As held by the Supreme Court in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (2nd cited supra), the finality to the result of public examination has to be ensured and in the absence of a statutory provision, the Court cannot direct re- assessment or re-examination of answer scripts. The exceptional circumstances, under which the Courts can direct production of answer scripts, are also mentioned in the said judgment viz., that a case is made out to show that either some answers have not been valued or that the valuation has been done contrary to the norms prescribed by the examining body. The case of the petitioner does not fall in either of the above two categories. For the above-mentioned reasons, I do not find any merit in the Writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed. As a sequel to dismissal of the Writ Petition, WPMP.No.7302 of 2010, filed by the petitioner for interim relief, is disposed of as infructuous. ___________________________ (C.V.NAGARJUNA REDDY, J) 11th March, 2010 lur [1] (2007) 8 Supreme Court Cases 242 [2] (2007) 1 Supreme Court cases 603