WP(C) 377/2011 BEFORE THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE B.K. SHARMA The petitioner, who was aspirant for the post of Sub-Inspector o f Police (U.B) as an S.T.(P) category candidate, has filed this writ petition pr aying for a direction to the respondents to re-examine/re-evaluate the Answer Sc ripts of the petitioner pertaining to written examination conducted for the purp ose of selection. According to the petitioner, on the basis of the answers furni shed by him in the written examination, he was to get at least 60% of the total marks. It is the further stand of the petitioner that as per his assessment of t he answers furnished by him, there was shortage of 28 marks, but for which, he w ould have secured 133 marks in the written examination as against 105 marks awar ded to him. In the additional affidavit filed by the petitioner, he has give n the details of purported wrong committed by the respondents in making evaluati on of his Answer Scripts. In paragraph 2 of the additional affidavit, such detai ls have been furnished towards urging that he was denied at least 28 marks in th e written examination. In the counter affidavit filed by the respondents against the sa id additional affidavit, the position has been clarified by stating as to how an d why the petitioner could not be awarded marks as per his expectation. The peti tioner in his reply affidavit has stated about the wrong method and procedure a dopted by the respondents in respect of awarding of marks against the questions on Mathematics. It is the stand of the petitioner that since the answers furnis hed by the petitioner were right irrespective of methodology adopted in arriving at the solution, he ought to have been awarded full marks for the said question s. In the further affidavit filed by the respondents, the aforesaid position has been clarified by stating that the examiner who had examined the a nswer sheet on going through the procedure adopted towards answering the questio ns on Mathematics found that the procedure adopted was wrong and in some questio ns, there was no indication of procedure adopted. Be it stated here that in the Question Paper, it was indicated that the candidates will have to show rough wo rk towards answering the question. Even if the aforesaid plea of the petitioner is accepted, he wil l be entitled to 3 additional marks as against his total of 105 making it 108, f alling short off the cut off marks fixed for ST(P) candidate, which is said to b e 134. Shri Dharani Dhar Nath, DSP, in-charge, Law in the office of the Director General of Police, Assam has produced the relevant records to show tha t the cut off marks fixed for ST(P) category candidate for the post was 134. The respondents in their counter affidavit filed against the add itional affidavit dealing with denial of marks to the petitioner, in paragraph 4 of the said counter affidavit have shown the marks secured by the petitioner ag ainst answers furnished by him in a tabular form. According to the petitioner, although the respondents have stated awarding of correct marks to the petitioner , but their being no indication as to which were wrong answers for which the pet itioner was denied marks, it is not discernible as to whether there was any corr ect answers or not as the petitioner except asserting furnishing of correct answ ers have not highlighted anything. The evaluation of answers in respect of the written examination is a task entrusted to the selection committee. As against the plea of the peti tioner that although he had furnished right answers, the respondents have denied the marks to the extent of 28, the stand of the respondents is that there was n o such denial and in fact, the Answer Script of the petitioner was correctly ass essed. The writ Court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot sit on appeal over the evaluation made by ex pert body like the selection committee. It also cannot take the task of re-evalu ation of the Answer Script. Nothing has been shown that the relevant Recruitment Rules permit such re-evaluation/re-assessment of the Answer Script. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner and accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.