IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CWJC No.4553 of 2009 Vinit Kumar Sinha, Son of Surendra Kumar Sinha, Resident of Mohalla- Sikandarpur, P.O.- Jamalpur, District-Munger. .... Petitioner. Versus 1. The State of Bihar, through the Secretary, Higher Education, Bihar, Patna. 2. Vice-Chancellor, Madurai Kamraj University (Director Education), Palkolai Nagar, Madurai, Tamul Nadu (Connected with Arcade Business College, Rajendra Nagar, Patna. 3. Additional Controller of Examination, Madurai Kam Raj University (Director Eduation) Palkolai Nagar, Madhurai. 4. Director, Arcade Busines College, Rajendra Ngar, Patna. 5. Examination Coordinator, Arcade Business College, Rajendra Nagar, Patna. ...Respondents. ----------- 02- 10.4.2009 Heard Mr. Arbind Kumar Sharma for the petitioner, and learned Assistant Counsel to Mr. Arbind Kumar No.2, Government Pleader No.20. The petitioner seeks a direction to respondent no.3 to re-evaluate the petitioner’s answer book of M.Sc. (Mathematics) previous, and M.Sc. (Mathematics) final examination 2006-2008. 2. According to the writ petition, the petitioner has joined the M.Sc. course of distance education conducted by the Kam Raj University, Tamil Nadu. The petitioner appeared at the examination and has been declared successful. The petitioner raises a grievance before this Court that he has done better and, therefore, he should have been awarded more marks. He seeks a direction 2 to respondent no.3 for re-evaluation of the answer-books. 3. We have perused the materials on record and considered the submissions of learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is based on the sole ground that he had done exceptionally well in the examination which is based on his self-estimation which may not be correct assessment of his performance. Law is well settled that courts do not normally interfere with re-evaluation of answer-books, unless the rules permit the same. No such rule has been brought to my notice. Secondly, in spite of repeated queries, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to satisfy whether or not the respondent University is State within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Thirdly, the petitioner seeks a direction to respondent no.3 which is based at Madurai, in the State of Tamil Nadu. The writ petition is also not maintainable in this Court. 4. It is accordingly dismissed. (S K Katriar, J.) S.K.Pathak/