n H!GH COURT OF JUDtCATURE AT B1LASPUR. CHHATTISGARH SSNGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHR! S.R. NAYAK, WRiT PtTlTLON N0.3977 0^2008. Ku. Sheetai Gupta, about 25 years, D/o. Shri A.K. Gupta, C/o. Droupati Devi, near the Pri'mary Schooi, Post - Patna, Distt. -Koria.(C.G.) State of Chhattisgarh, Through : The Secretary, Wiinistry of HEgher Education, Mantraisy, D.K.S. Bhawan, Raipur. Chhattisaarh Professionai Examination Board, Through Secretary, Raipur. P.0. & Distt. Raipur (C.G.) Shri B.R. Ghosh, !earned counsel for the petitioner. Shri Utkarsh Verma, leamed Dy. G.A. for the State of C.G. Shri H.B. Agrawai, learned senior counse! with iVis. Sangeeti Mishra, Searned counsei for respondent No.2. (Passedon1s'August, 20QS) The petitioner Ku. Sheetai Gupta appeared for the Pre-Medica! Test conducted by the Chhattisgarh Professional Examination Board, the second respondent herein. in the said test, she has secured 67.01 marks in Physics, 77.88 marks in Chemistiy, 77.78 marks in Zoology and 21 marks in Botanv out of 100. The marks awarded to the petitioner-candidate in the subject of Botany is questioned on the ground that since the pstitioner has consistentiy secured relatively good percentage of marks in other subjects, she ought to have secured equatly good marks in the subject of Botany also. To support the above hypothesis, there is absoiuteiy no iega! basis and in fact learned counsel for the petltioner was aiso not in a position to !ay any materials before the Court in that regard. The second ground urged is that the answer scripts are rsquired to be assessed on the basis of the set answers furnished -^- by the Board and if an answer of the candidate to a question is not in conformity with such set answer, such candidate will be given no marks. tt is claimed that there may be more than one cqrrect answer to a question. The pleading in Para 6.1 is as vague as it couid be and it contains only an opinion, not facts. The petitioner has not disciosed the material particulars as to tor which answers, there can be more than one correct answer; the answers of the petitioner to questions etc. Be that as it may, it is now weli settled that the right to peruse the answer scripts, recount of marks anct revaluation of the answer scripts cannot be ordered by the Courts unless the statutory reguiations or administrative instructions governing the examinations/tests as iaid down by the examining Board or the Unlversity provide for them. (See AIR 1984 SC 1543). In the cireumstance, the writ petition is dismissed. No costs. Chief Justice ^'A-O^