JUDGMENT - Daud S.M., J.:—Petitioner is a Sub-Inspector attached to the Crime Branch C.I.D., Bombay and has put in 8 years of service. The 2nd respondent – the M.P.S.C – conducts competitive examinations for selection of candidates to various public posts of the 1st respondent – the State of Maharashtra. One such examination for the post Deputy Superintendent of Police was conducted by the MPSC, and, therein the petitioner was a candidate. The subjects in which he was examined were English, Marathi, General Studies I II, Law and Banking. In the result declared he was intimated as having obtained an aggregate of 421 marks. This aggregate fell shot of the minimum by 9 marks. Consequently he was declared ineligible. Petitioner felt that he had performed well and that there was some error in the assessment. He, therefore, petitioned the MPSC to re-evaluate his answer papers in English, Marathi, Law and Banking. In reply, the MPSC referred to Regulation 15 of the Notification inviting application from candidates for different posts inclusive of the Deputy Superintendent of Police. This Regulation to the extent relevant reads as under:– “From the receipt of the mark statement, within one month, if the candidates make an application for verification of marks, the same shall be considered...” It further pointed out that the verification contemplated by Regulation 15 did not permit a re-evaluation but only a re-totalling or re-checking of the answer papers to find out if any question had not been examined or the marks not properly counted or totalled. Dissatisfied with the answer, the petitioner has instituted the present petition. He contends that the Regulation relied upon by the MPSC is illegal, arbitrary, unjust and unreasonable. The use of computers by the MPSC may have led to commission of mistakes. For instance such a mistake had been committed by the computer vis-a-vis code numbers in the mark sheets sent to him, as also Vijay Sahebrao Punde. Having regard to such errors, it was quite possible that there had been error in the evaluation of the answer papers submitted by him. In the background of his academic qualifications and performance in different examinations, he was sure that he had done very well and in any case certainly that well, so as to secure the minimum of an aggregate of 430 marks. In the background of his academic qualifications and performance in different examinations, he was sure that he had done very well and in any case certainly that well, so as to secure the minimum of an aggregate of 430 marks. The MPSC has put in a short affidavit-in-reply explaining how the errors referred to in the petition in the two mark-sheets arose. It contends that Regulation 15 is valid being entirely just and correct. 2. The learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner has referred to the judgment of the Supreme Court in the leading case of (Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc. etc.)1, A.I.R. 1984 S.C. 1543. According to Counsel, the embargo upon re-evaluation placed in that case will not be applicable to the facts and circumstances of the present case. The Supreme Court ruled out re-evaluation for the reasons set out in the passage given below which appear in para 27 of the judgment : “If the candidates are all to be given inspection of their answer books or the revaluations of the answer papers is to be done in the presence of the candidates, the process is bound to be extremely time consuming and if such a request is made by even about ten per cent of the candidates who will be 30,000 in number, it would involve several thousands of man hours and is bound to throw the entire system out of gear. Further, it is in the public interest that the results of Public Examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of a right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.” Mr. Sawant submits that the difficulties spoken of in the passage reproduced above do not exist in the instant case. Here, the number of candidates who appeared at the examination, was not much. Universities like University of Bombay had made provisions for revaluation of answer papers and there was no reason why the MPSC should not follow suit. I cannot agree that because the Bombay University has done something, the MPSC should emulate it. Here, the number of candidates who appeared at the examination, was not much. Universities like University of Bombay had made provisions for revaluation of answer papers and there was no reason why the MPSC should not follow suit. I cannot agree that because the Bombay University has done something, the MPSC should emulate it. A mere strong conviction entertained by a candidate about his performance cannot be a reason for directing re-evaluation in the absence of a rule permitting it. If every candidate who had appeared at the examination at which the petitioner appeared, were to apply for re-evaluation and if this went on from examination to examination conducted by the MPSC, there will be no end and the posts in which vacancies existed would continue to be indefinitely vacant. An occurrence of this type is not inconceivable having regard to the fondness of litigation amongst those competing for public posts. It was argued that this was the last chance for the petitioner to appear for Dy. S.P. Examination and that he would be content if the MPSC carried out a re-evaluation of any of the four papers in which he had appeared. This argument does not carry the matter any further. However, unfortunate petitioner's position be, the Rules have to be followed and cannot be bent to favour people placed in an unfortunate position. The petition fails and is hereby rejected. Parties to bear their own costs. Petition dismissed.