WP(C) 3823/2008 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI Heard Mr. K. Upadhyay, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. S. Cha kraborty, learned counsel for the Gauhati University. As agreed to and in view of the subject matter involved, the writ petiti on is being disposed of at the admission stage. The petitioner is aggrieved by the award of what she perceives to be low marks in the paper- Law of Crimes in the LL.B Final Examination of 2007. The petitioner secured 32 marks and has been declared to have failed in the said pap er. Contending that in view of the answers written by her she deserves higher ma rks, this writ petition has been filed seeking appropriate intervention of the C ourt. By earlier orders passed in this writ petition, the Court had required t he learned counsel for the University to place before the Court the answer scrip t of the petitioner in the paper in question alongwith the question paper. The s aid answer script alongwith the question paper has been made available. The power of the Court to scrutinize the award of marks by an examiner i s a severely circumscribed power. The Court does not act as an appellate body ov er the judgment of the examiner and the award of marks made by such examiner. On ly in cases where answers provided by a candidate have remained un-assessed or t he totaling of the marks has been incorrectly done, corrections are made by the Court. The above exception, however, will be subject to a general exception i.e. where the assessment of the examiner is, in no way, acceptable even conceding t he examiner to be the final decision maker. It is from the aforesaid limited per spective that the Court had thought it proper to read some of the answers provid ed by the petitioner in the paper in question. In this regard, the Court has spe cifically read the answers of the petitioner in response to Question Nos.1(c), ( d), (e) and (f) as well as the answer against Question No.4. Against question No s. 1(c), (d), (e) and (f) against the maximum of five marks for each question, t he petitioner has been awarded one mark each, whereas against Question No.4 agai nst the maximum of 20 marks, the petitioner has been awarded zero mark. Shri Chakraborty, learned counsel for the petitioner has drawn the atten tion of the Court to the reply of the examiner in response to the query made by the University as to the basis on which the examiner had examined the answer scr ipt in question. The Court on due consideration of the said reply of the examine r, which is annexed as Annexure-1 to the counter-affidavit of the University, is inclined to take the view that the award of zero mark against Question No.4 is not acceptable. Even if the answer of the petitioner, as provided by her, was no t specific, as stated by the examiner, the petitioner deserved some marks, the e xtent of which will, naturally, have to be determined now upon a re-examination of the answer script. As the award of marks against the said Question No.4 has b een found to be wholly unacceptable the use of rare power of the Court to direct scrutiny of the answer script of the petitioner by another examiner will be cal led for and justified. I, therefore, allow this writ petition and direct the University authori ty to have the answer script of the petitioner in the paper in question scrutini zed by another examiner and, thereafter, announce the result of the petitioner o n the basis of such marks as may be awarded upon re-examination. This will be d one by the University authority without any delay. The writ petition consequently is allowed, as indicated above.