JUDGMENT A.N. Varma, J. - The petitioner prays for a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to declare the petitioner's result after allotting marks to him in the English (II Paper) of the B.A. Examination of the respondent University in the year 1986. The relevant facts are that the petitioner appeared at the B.A. (Par 11) Examination held in 1986 and he was allotted Roll Number 154467. The petitioner appeared at the said examination but his result was not published. When the petitioner obtained a copy of the marks sheet he found that he had been awarded zero in English Second Paper. There upon the petitioner made an application for re-evaluation of his English Second paper. It appears from the counter affidavit filled on behalf of the University that the answer book of the petitioner in that paper was lost in transit when the same was despatched for re-valuation. The University accordingly could not undertake the exercise of re-evaluation. The stand taken by the University in the counter affidavit is that the answer books having been lost it was not feasible to undertake the re-evaluation applied for by petitioner in that paper. 2. Aggrieved by the aforesaid action or omission of the respondent University, the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that if the petitioners paper could not be re-evaluated, the University itself was to blame. Consequently the University should have awarded marks to the petitioner in that paper on the average of the marks obtained by him in other papers of that examination. 4. The contention cannot be accepted. No. rule has been cited by counsel for the petitioner for awarding marks on the basis of average marks secured by the petitioner in other papers. Here the petitioner was awarded marks in English Second Paper in the first instance. The position would have been different if the petitioner had not been awarded marks even in the first instance. Further in an identical situation, this Court has taken the view that where the answer book of the candidate is lost it is not possible to grant the relief of a direction for re-evaluation of that paper of the paper of the simple reason that re-evaluation in such circumstances is an impossibility. Further in an identical situation, this Court has taken the view that where the answer book of the candidate is lost it is not possible to grant the relief of a direction for re-evaluation of that paper of the paper of the simple reason that re-evaluation in such circumstances is an impossibility. (See the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No. 14561 of 1985. Smt. Nirmala Devi v. Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur University, and writ petition No. 2786 of 1987, Radhey Kumar Rai v. Vice-Chancellor, Gorakhpur and another, decided respectively, on December 3, 1987 and February 23, 1988). In both these cases papers had been evaluated in the first instance. 5. In the present case too the petitioners answer book was evaluated and he was awarded zero in that paper in the first instance. We are in respectful agreement with the view expressed in these cases. 6. The position, therefore, is that the relief for a direction to the respondents to the declare the result by awarding marks to the petitioner in the English (II Paper) on the basis suggested by the learned counsel cannot be granted. 7. It, however, appears to B.A. unfortunate case. The petitioner was entitled to appear at the supplementary examination in the aforesaid paper following declaration of the result of the aforesaid examination. For reasons which are not understandable the petitioner chose not to appear at the said examination. Learned counsel submits that the petitioner hoped that he will get the requisite relief in this petition and, therefore, he not only did not appear at the supplementary examination following the declaration of the result but also did not appear in any of the subsequent examination held in the following years. The entire career of the petitioner is thus in danger of being completely ruined because of an error of judgment predictably arising from immaturity because of the failure of the petitioner to avail of the opportunity to appear at the supplementary examination. 8. We think that for that error of judgment, the petitioner should not be condemned for all times. Interest of justice demands that the petitioner should be permitted to appear at the next examination held by the University in that paper, whether supplementary or final. Learned counsel for the University informs us that under the rules the petitioner has to appear in both the papers of English. Interest of justice demands that the petitioner should be permitted to appear at the next examination held by the University in that paper, whether supplementary or final. Learned counsel for the University informs us that under the rules the petitioner has to appear in both the papers of English. If this be so, the petitioner should avail of that opportunity and appear in both the papers of English I and II Papers at the next examination. After the petitioner appears his result should be declared within one month thereof. This should not, however, be taken as a precedent enabling other students who may similarly decline to avail themselves of the opportunity of appearing at the supplementary examination. 9. In the result, the petition is disposed of with the direction that the petitioner may be permitted to appear at the English and II papers of B.A. (Part II) at the next examination which is held by the University in those papers. The University may thereafter declare the petitioner's result it he appears at those papers. 10. A copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties on payment of the usual charges within three days.