IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD WEDNESDAY, THE SECOND DAY OF APRIL TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SHRI ANIL R. DAVE and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT APPEAL NO : 361 of 2008 (Writ Appeal under Clause 15 of the Letters Patent against the Order dated 05/02/2008 in WP NO : 26506 OF 2007 on the file of the High Court.) Between: Gunnam Gokul Krishna, S/o Gopal Rao, R/o D.No.24-14-6, R.V.nagar, Rajahmundry, E.G. District. ..... APPELLANT AND 1 The Chief Secretary, Department of Education, Secretariat, Hyderabad. 2 Secretary, Board of Intermediate Education, Vidya Bhavan, Nampally, Hyderabad-500 001. .....RESPONDENT(S) Counsel for the Appellant:MR. KAKARA VENKATA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR EDUCATION The Court made the following : JUDGMENT Per Anil R. Dave, CJ Judgment delivered in W.P.No.26506 of 2007 dated 5.2.2008 has been challenged in this appeal. The subject matter of the writ petition was about re- examination/re-verification of marks secured by the appellant- petitioner at the end of II year Intermediate Examination, which had been conducted in March, 2007. The appellant-petitioner was aggrieved by the marks awarded in respect of Mathematics-II (B) paper because, according to him, he had secured lesser marks than what he ought to have secured. In the circumstances, the petition was filed praying that the limited rectification done by the respondent- Board be quashed and set aside because, according to the appellant, wrong marks had been assigned in Mathematics-II (B) paper. It is pertinent to note that when a grievance with regard to securing of lesser marks by the appellant was made before the Respondent No.1 - Board, the answer script of the appellant-student had been re-verified as per the Rules and Regulations governing the scheme of evaluation of Intermediate Examination of the Board and upon such re-verification; it was found that the total marks which had been awarded were correct. Upon consideration of the material on record and the regulations of the Board, the learned Single Judge had dismissed the writ petition. Being aggrieved by the order of dismissal of the petition, this appeal has been filed. The learned advocate appearing for the appellant-student has submitted that answer book of the appellant ought to have been re- examined/revalued. It is pertinent to note that there is no provision in the regulations of the Respondent No.1 - Board, with regard to re- examination/revaluation of the answer book. The only provision is with regard to re-verification of marks awarded. There is a further provision in the regulations to the effect that if a student has been awarded ‘Zero’ marks in respect of any answer by the examiner or where answers are not valued at all, then such answers may be re- verified. As per the aforesaid regulation, the answer book of the appellant-student had been re-verified and it was found that the marks, which had been awarded to the appellant-student, were correct. Though there is no challenge to the regulations of the Board for not providing any provision in the regulations for re- examination/revaluation of an answer book, the learned Advocate appearing for the appellant has submitted that the answer book of the appellant ought to have been re-examined/revalued by the Board. We are afraid, we cannot accede to the said submission of the learned advocate for the reason that it is not obligatory on the part of Respondent No.1- Board to re-examine/revalue the answer book in the absence of any such provision made in the regulations. As stated hereinbefore, the only provision made in the regulations is with regard to re-verification of the answer book but not re- examination/revaluation of the answer book. Looking to the aforestated provisions made in the regulations of the Board, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the learned Single Judge has committed any error in dismissing the writ petition. In our opinion, the judgment delivered by the learned Single Judge is just and proper and no interference is warranted by this Court. The appeal must, therefore, fail and it is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs. ANIL R. DAVE, CJ 2nd April, 2008 R. SUBHASH REDDY, J vtv