G. C. BHARUKA, J. ( 1 ) THE present writ petition has been filed by the petitioner for issuance of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to revalue the answer scripts of the petitioner pertaining to Anatomy I and II Papers of First Year M. B. B. S. Course for which he had sat in the examination held in February, 1995. ( 2 ) ADMITTEDLY, the petitioner has failed in the said papers. On announcement of the results, he applied for retotalling of his marks as per the University Regulations. Even on retotalling, the marks remained unaltered. Accordingly, as per the University Regulations governing revaluation, he made an application seeking permission to apply for revaluation of his said answer scripts. By letter dated 12-7-1995 (Annexure-A), it was communicated to the petitioner that the Vice-Chancellor on appraisal of the report of the Committee constituted for scrutinising answer scripts has opined that the case of the petitioner and similarly situated other students have not been found fit for revaluation and accordingly, the permission for applying for revaluation has been refused. ( 3 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the impugned communication and the decision of the Vice Chancellor needs to be quashed because before refusing to grant permission for revaluation, no opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioner which amounts to violation of principles of natural justice. His further submission is that the petitioner has not been informed of reasons which have prevailed with either the Committee or the Vice Chancellor in rejecting the request of the petitioner which is another infirmity again based on principles of natural justice. ( 4 ) ON the other hand, Mr. Mali Patil, appearing for the respondent-University has submitted that for refusal of permission as sought for by the petitioner, under the regulations, the discretion has been vested in the Vice Chancellor to accord or not to accord the permission keeping in view the report of the expert committee and in such cases, the principles of natural justice which has been sought to be invoked by the petitioner, has no play. ( 5 ) THE Procedure, as laid down under the regulations framed by the University for revaluation, is to the following effect:"3. ( 5 ) THE Procedure, as laid down under the regulations framed by the University for revaluation, is to the following effect:"3. Procedure to apply for revaluation: (a) A candidate desirous of applying for revaluation shall first apply for retotalling of marks in the concerned subject (s) as per the University Rules. (b) If a candidate is not satisfied with the result of retotalling he shall write a letter to the Registrar (Evaluation) within 15 days, clearly indicating the reasons for dis-satisfaction and request him to grant a permission to apply for revaluation. (c) On receipt of such letter the Vice Chancellor, after verification of the reasons stated in the letter, shall constitute a committee to look into the matter. (d) The Committee so constituted shall (i) make thorough scrutiny of the answer script (s) concerned and (ii) verify his earlier academic records if necessary, and submit a report to the Registrar (Evaluation), specifically indicating whether it is a fit case for Revaluation or not. (e) On the consideration of the Committee's recommendations the Registrar (Evaluation) in consultation with the Vice Chancellor shall grant permission to the candidate concerned to apply for revaluation. (f) The candidate concerned shall apply for revaluation in the prescribed form within 15 days from the date of grant of permission in the prescribed form by remitting a fee of Rs. 750/- per paper for Professional Courses (Rs. 375/- for SC/st) and Rs. 250/- per paper for other courses (Rs. 125/- for SC/st ). 5a. The impugned regulations have been framed under Section 27 read with 39 of the Karnataka State Universities Act, 1976 (for brevity, hereinafter the 'act' only ). Sections 27 and 39 to the extent it is relevant reads thus -"27. Powers of the Academic Council: (1) The Academic Council shall be the academic body of the University and shall, subject to the provision of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, have the control and general regulation of and be responsible for the maintenance of the standards of instruction, education and examinations of the University. Powers of the Academic Council: (1) The Academic Council shall be the academic body of the University and shall, subject to the provision of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances, have the control and general regulation of and be responsible for the maintenance of the standards of instruction, education and examinations of the University. (2) Without prejudice to the generality of the foregoing and subject to such conditions as may be prescribed by or under the provisions of this Act, the Academic Council shall exercise the following powers, namely:- (a) to make proposals for Ordinance relating to academic matters; (b) to make Regulations regarding the courses of study in so far as they are not covered by the Ordinances; (c) to make Regulations regarding the Schemes of examinations and conditions on which the students shall be admitted to the examinations, degrees, diplomas, certificates or other academic distinctions; (d) to make Regulations for declaration of the results of the various University Examinations;39. Regulations:- (1) The Academic Council may, subject to the approval of the Chancellor sought and obtained through the State Government make Regulations consistent with this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinances (The State Government shall transmit the regulations within two months from the date of receipt thereof from the University to the Chancellor with its comments.) (2) The Regulations may provide for exercising all or any of the powers enumerated in Section 2 and particularly for the following matters, namely; - (a)admission of students to the University; (b)recognition of examinations and degrees of other Universities as equivalent to the examinations and degrees of the University; (c) the University Courses and examinations and conditions on which students of the University or the affiliated Colleges or of other University Institutions shall be admitted to examinations or degrees, diplomas and Certificates of the University. " ( 6 ) FROM the above, it is clear that the impugned regulations have been framed within the scope and ambit of the powers conferred by the Act on the Academic Council and it has been made in the manner prescribed under Section 39. ( 7 ) NOW the only question that needs to be examined is whether the impugned regulations infringe any of the fundamental rights or other restrictions or limitations imposed by the Constitution and whether those should conform to any of the requirements of Principles of natural justice as claimed by the petitioner. ( 7 ) NOW the only question that needs to be examined is whether the impugned regulations infringe any of the fundamental rights or other restrictions or limitations imposed by the Constitution and whether those should conform to any of the requirements of Principles of natural justice as claimed by the petitioner. ( 8 ) IT cannot be disputed that every examinee has a right to demand evaluation of his answer script because in absence of such an exercise on the part of the examining body the very purpose of holding examinations will be frustrated. But the question is whether the examinees have a further right to demand revaluation on the ground of ensuring fairplay in examinations. ( 9 ) A somewhat similar question had fallen for consideration before the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543 . The question canvassed before their Lordships was as to "whether, under law, a candidate has a right to demand such an inspection, verification and revaluation of answer books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education governing the subject insofar as they categorically state that there shall be no such right can be said to be ultra vires, unreasonable and void. " The Court answered it in the negative. It was held that :"we do not find it possible to agree with the views expressed by the High Court that the denial of the right to demand a revaluation constitutes a denial of fair play and is unreasonable. The Board is a very responsible body. The candidates have taken the examination with full awareness of the provisions contained in the Regulations and in the declaration made in the form of application for admission to the examination they have solemnly stated that they fully agree to abide by the regulations issued by the Board. In the circumstances, when we find that all safe-guard against errors and malpractices have been provided for, there cannot be said to be denial of fair play to the examinees by reasons of the prohibition against asking for revaluation. " ( 10 ) IT has further been held in the above referred case that -". . . . . . . . " ( 10 ) IT has further been held in the above referred case that -". . . . . . . . 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 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. " ( 11 ) UNDER the present Regulations framed by the respondent University, though a right has been given to the examinees to get marks of their answer scripts verified and retotalled, their right to apply for revaluation has been made dependent on grant of permission by the Vice Chancellor, who has to come to his own conclusions in this regard on the basis of the report of a Committee constituted for the purpose. This provision has obviously been made to check the tendency of the examinees to apply for revaluations just to adjudge their expectations based on their own assessment of Performance and merit without there being even a plausible much less an acceptable ground. ( 12 ) AS noticed by the Apex Court in the judgment under reference, any such blanket right of revaluation of answer papers is bound to be extremely time consuming involving several thousands of man-hours and is bound to throw the entire system of academic curriculam out of gear. Despite all these reasons which can validly justify complete denial of the right of revaluation, the respondent University through its Academic Council, in order to ensure fair-play and to counter apprehensions of irregularities like malpractice, misconduct, fraud, etc. has permitted the examinees to make an application for seeking permission to apply for revaluation setting out specific grounds for the same and has bestowed discretion on the highest executive and academic authority of the University , namely the Vice Chancellor to examine the complaint with the help of an expert body and if the reasons set out by the examinee are found to be good, accord permission to apply for revaluation. There cannot be a better procedure to counter balance the administrative exigencies and the requirement of ensuring fairplay. There cannot be a better procedure to counter balance the administrative exigencies and the requirement of ensuring fairplay. ( 13 ) SO far as the plea based on non-observance of the principles of natural justice is concerned, in my opinion, keeping in view the nature of function assigned to the Vice Chancellor under the impugned regulations, those principle can have no application. In the case of Maharashtra S. B. O. S. and H. S. Education ( AIR 1984 SC 1543 ) (supra) a similar contention was found to be untenable by the apex Court. In paragraph 12 of the judgment, it has been held thus :"in our opinion, the High Court was perfectly right in taking this view and in holding that the "process of evaluation of answer papers or of subsequent verification of marks" under clause (3) of Regn. 104 does not attract the principles of natural justice since no decision making process which brings about adverse evil consequences to the examinees is involved. The principles of natural justice cannot be extended beyond reasonable and rational limits and cannot be carried to such absurd lengths as to make it necessary that candidates who have taken a public examination should be allowed to participate in the process of evaluation of their performances or to verify the correctness of the evaluation made by the examiners by themselves conducting an inspection of the answer books and determining whether there has been a proper and fair valuation of the answers by the examiners. As succinctly put by Mathew, J. in his judgment in the Union of India v. M. L. Capoor, (1974) 1 SCR 797 : AIR 1974 SC 87 , "it is not expedient to extend the horizon or natural justice involved in the audi alteram pattern rule to the twilight zone of mere expectations, however great they may be". The challenge levelled against the validity of clause (3) of Regn. 104 based on the plea of violation of natural justice was, therefore, rightly rejected by the High Court. " ( 14 ) TO summarise, it has to be held that revaluation is not the right of any student. Revaluation of the answer scripts has to be strictly governed by the regulations framed by the University to meet the genuine grievances on appraisal of all the surrounding circumstances. " ( 14 ) TO summarise, it has to be held that revaluation is not the right of any student. Revaluation of the answer scripts has to be strictly governed by the regulations framed by the University to meet the genuine grievances on appraisal of all the surrounding circumstances. If right of revaluation is granted as a matter of course to the students, then no University can complete its academic curriculam within the prescribed period nor the results of the examination can be given a finality by any defined point of time. It is in view to these objectives that the present regulations have been framed by the University and the discretion has been vested in the highest executive and academic authority of the University, namely, the Vice Chancellor to form an opinion on the basis of the report of an expert committee as to whether in a particular case, permission to apply for revaluation has to be granted or not. Permission is not refused because of any charge or allegation levelled against the student so as to require a hearing from him. In my considered opinion, right of hearing or communication of reasons for such rejection is not a mandatory condition to sustain the validity of such orders. In that view of the matter, in my opinion, the objections raised by the petitioner cannot be sustained. ( 15 ) WRIT Petition is accordingly dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed. --- *** --- .