S. H. SHETH, J. ( 1 ) ). The petitioner was a student who appeared at the Higher Secondary Certificate Examination held by Gujarat Higher Secondary Certificate Examination Board in April 1980. She appeared at the Science stream of that examination. On 16th June 1980 the petitioner was declared to have passed the examination. On obtaining the marks sheet she found that in Mathematics Papers I and II and in Biology she had secured unduly less marks. In Mathematics Papers I and II she had secured 122 marks out of 1500. In Biology she had secured 61 marks out of 100. She therefore made an application to the Board on 17th June 1980 for re-verification of her marks in Mathematics Papers I and II and Biology and paid Rs. 30/as fees for the purpose. ( 2 ) THEREAFTER the petitioner and her father approached the Secretary to the Board and complained orally against the unduly less marks assigned to the petitioner in those Papers. The Secretary to the Board took out the petitioners answer books in those papers. They were seen not only by the Secretary to the Board but also by the petitioner and her father. Thereafter the Secretary sent a letter to the petitioner in which he stated that the petitioners marks in Mathematics Papers I and II and in Biology were verified and the totals were checked up and that everything was found to be correct and in order. The petitioner was not satisfied with this answer. Therefore she filed this petition. ( 3 ) IN this petition the petitioner claims that the Board ought to have got her answer books in Mathematics Papers I and II and in Biology re-assessed. On behalf of the Board it has been averred that no examine has a right to have his papers re-assessed. In other words there is no rule or regulation which provides for re-assessment of answer books. ( 4 ) MR. I. P. Shah who appears on behalf of the petitioner has argued that every student who appears at a public examination has a right to reassessment. We are unable to accede to this argument of his. Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Board is a statutory body constituted under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 It performs statutory duties. It holds the examination in accordance with the regulations which have been framed by it in that behalf. We are unable to accede to this argument of his. Gujarat Higher Secondary Education Board is a statutory body constituted under the Gujarat Secondary Education Act 1972 It performs statutory duties. It holds the examination in accordance with the regulations which have been framed by it in that behalf. Any student who appears at the examination held by the Board is bound by the regulations under which it is held. If the regulations do not provide for re-assessment of answer books no student can claim it. A Court of Law cannot perform the role of a Legislature and create such a right as Legislature may do where there is none. Mr. Shah has not been able to point out any law-constitutional or statutory-an the strength of which the petitioner can claim the right to re-assessment of her answer books. ( 5 ) A similar question arose before us in Special Civil Application No. 2499 of 1980 decided by us on September 15 1980 (Rajendra R. Dave v. Gujarat Secondary Education Board XXI (2) = 1980 (2) G. L. R. 318 ). In that decision we have dealt at length with this aspect. We reproduce below the observations made in that judgment in this behalf:-SO far as reassessment is concerned the rules made by the Board do not permit any re-valuation. Indeed there is no express prohibition against re-valuation. Gujarat Secondary Education Board which is a statutory Board holds the examination in accordance with law under which it functions. The examination is the creature of that Law. The examination is therefore held and results are declared in accordance with the conditions laid down under the law. If such a law provides only for retotaling of marks or reverification and does not permit reassessment it cannot be said that such a law is bad. To say that every student must have a right of assessment is going too far in interfering with the working of the autonomous bodies operating in such fields. MR. Tanna has cited before us two unreported decisions of the High Court at Bombay in (1) Writ Petition Nos. 1906/80 and others decided by a Division Bench of that Court on 28-7-1980 and (2) Writ Petition No. 1909/80 and others decided on 28 July 1980. The High Court at Bombay appears to have taken a contrary view of the matter. Tanna has cited before us two unreported decisions of the High Court at Bombay in (1) Writ Petition Nos. 1906/80 and others decided by a Division Bench of that Court on 28-7-1980 and (2) Writ Petition No. 1909/80 and others decided on 28 July 1980. The High Court at Bombay appears to have taken a contrary view of the matter. We may however add that the relevant rule which operates in the State of Maharashtra expressly prohibits reassessment. There is no express prohibition against reassessment in our case. However for the purpose of this petition express prohibition is equivalent to failure to provide for reassessment. WE are of the opinion that as reassessment is not provided by the rules the Secondary Education Board cannot be compelled to reassess the answer books of the petitioner. We regret our inability to concur in the view which the High Court at Bombay appears to have taken in those two decisions. We are of the opinion that in the working of autonomous bodies operating in specialised fields the High Court at Bombay has gone too far. We think that a Court of Law should not stretch its long arms to interfere with the working of such autonomous bodies unless the petitioner makes out a case of mala fide or a mal-practice against anyone or more of them. We would like to set limit to our jurisdiction in such cases and confine it to a mala fide section or a malpractice affecting a student. To extend our jurisdiction beyond it is to take an impractical and inexpedient view. It is difficult to assume an honest mistake as the High Court at Bombay has done and to proceed to build thereon the structure or edifice of our constitutional jurisdiction. If we fall prey to the temptation of extending our jurisdiction far too wide without setting well-defined limits to it we shall be facing a very sad day nay we have started facing it. If out of a lakh of students who annually appear at the Higher Secondary Examination only five thousand apply for re-assessment and approach this Court on refusal to grant reassessment with a solemnly affirmed statement that he believes the assessment of his answer books to be an under-assessment shall we transform ourselves into examiners or shall we appoint an army of fresh examiners for reassessing the allegedly under-valued answer books ? If this floodgate is opened shall we be able to withstand the gushing waters or shall the judiciary be irretrievably sub-merged and buried by them in a watery grave? It is necessary to remember that we do not have an annual fair of only one examination. More than a dozen such examinations are held every year by each of such Boards and each of more than one hundred Universities in the country and at such examinations not less than a million students appear every year. Right thrive in a democracy as they ought to but mushrooms must be sternly weeded out. Judiciary which is otherwise under a very heavy strain must discipline itself unless the last ray of hope which a common man has in this country is driven to be extinguished. Since there is no allegation of mala fides or malpractice in this case we see no reason to interfere with the refusal of the Board to reassess the petitioners answer books in Mathematics Papers I and II and Biology (Theory ). We therefore dismiss this petition. We see no reason to depart from the view which we have recorded in that decision. We may however point out that in the case which the High Court at Bombay decided and to which we have made reference in the decision quoted above we have assumed that an express provision against reassessment was for the purpose of that case equivalent to no provision for reassessment. The assumption which we made was only for the purpose of that case. It is not an assumption which can be made in every case. We do not make such an assumption in this case. Therefore the position which emerges from our omission to make that assumption is as follows. With an express provision against reassessment which the relevant regulations made by Maharashtra Higher Secondary Education Board provided no reassessment of any answer book could be made even if it was proved that the assessment of a students answers was made mala fide or was the result of some mal-practice committed by the Board the examiners or the moderators. In Gujarat we do not have such an express provision against reassessment. A provision which bars an enquiry into a mala fide action or an action which is the result of a mal-practice can be deemed to be void and ultra vires Art. 14. In Gujarat we do not have such an express provision against reassessment. A provision which bars an enquiry into a mala fide action or an action which is the result of a mal-practice can be deemed to be void and ultra vires Art. 14. No citizen can be made to suffer on account of a wrong deliberately perpetrated by another. Therefore an express provision against reassessment which militates against reassessment under all circumstances can be held to be void and ultra vires. In Gujarat we do not have such an express provision. There is only an omission to provide for reassessment. Reassessment is a right which must flow from the rules of the regulations under which an examination is held. If it does not provide for reassessment an examine has no right to reassessment. However merely because there is no provision for reassessment on examinee can be made to suffer on account of a wrong deliberately perpetrated by another. Therefore in absence of an express provision against re-assessment we are taking the view that if an examine shows that the assessment of her answers has been done mala fide or is a result of some mal-practice committed against her resulting in the assignment of unduly less marks to her answers he or she can always seek a remedy against such a mala fide action or an action based upon mal-practice. Appeal dismissed. .