S. P. SRIVASTAVA, J. This petitioner appeared in the intermediate examination conducted by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education in the year 1993-94 as a private candidate for which he had been allotted roll number 0893289. He asserts that his answers to the questions set in the question papers were fairly good and he was confident that he would pass the examination securing about 50% marks but was declared to have failed in the aforesaid examination by the respondents. It is also stated by the petitioner that from the mark-sheet supplied to him by the respondents, it was disclosed that while he had secured 62 marks in the subject of Chemistry and 46 marks in the subject of Biology, the marks awarded to him in the subjects of English were only 28 and in the subject of Physics only 26 on the basis whereof he had been declared to have failed in these subjects. It is asserted that the petitioner had done fairly well its both the subjects of English and Physics and was quite hopeful of securing good marks in these subjects and there was no chance of his having been failed in the examination. 2. It appears that on the receipt of the mark-sheet the petitioner approached the respondent No. 1 for getting re-evaluation of his answer books for the aforesaid subjects of English and Physics but this request for re-evaluation was rejected by the respondent No. 1 on the ground that there was no provision for re-evalution. 3. The petitioner asserts that the answer books had not been examined properly in the examination conducted by the respondent No. 1 and the casual examining of the answer books without correctly and properly assessing the performance of the examinee, the respondent No. 1 has declared the result ignoring the irregularities and bungling. The petitioner claims that his career is being spoiled due to arbitrary and calious evaluation of his answer books. The petitioner claims that his career is being spoiled due to arbitrary and calious evaluation of his answer books. On the aforesaid assertions, the petitioner claims that his answer books in the subjects of English and Physics be got re-evaluated and the petitioner be declared to have passed by awarding him atleast 8 grace marks in both the subjects and the and the rule whereunder grace marks to the extent of 8 marks may be given to the students in one subject only be extended so as to award the grace marks in two subjects as the petitioner has secured more than 25% marks in the subjects of English and Physics as there can be no justification for giving grace marks only in one subject. 4. On the aforesaid assertions, the petitioner has sought for a direction requiring, the respondent No. 1 to get the petitioners answer books in the subject of Physics and English to be re-examined/re- evaluated and has further sought for a direction requiring the respondents to declare him as having passed after awarding him grace marks in both the subjects of Physics and English. 5. The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, the respondent No. 1 on various grounds It has been asserted that the petitioner has been allotted marks according to his performance without there being any irregularity or illegality as alleged. It is further asserted that there was no provision for re-evalua tion of the answer books and the petitioner has no right to claim re-evaluation of his answers to the questions set in the question papers relating to the subjects of English and Physics. It has however, been indicated that the petitioner can get a scrutiny done for which he had never applied. It is also asserted that the answer books of the petitioner had been examined by the experience examiners. So far as, the question relating to the award of the grace marks is concerned, the stand of the respondent No. 1 is that the provisions relating to the award of grace marks stipulate that grace marks could be awarded to the extent of 8 marks only in one subject provided the examinee had secured 25 marks in the subject and the aggregate came to 40%. In the present case, since the petitioner had failed in two subject, the award of grace marks in one subject could have made no difference at all in the final result in the case of the petitioner who had been declared to have failed in the intermediate examination. 6. I have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel representing the respondent No. 1 and has carefully perused the record. 7. A written examination is aimed at adjudging the caliber of the examinee which is reflected in his performance in the answer books. In the present system of examination on person is assessed by others in regard to the levels of his intellectual competence. However, the correctness of the evaluation of the answers given by an examinee in an examination which answers are evaluated by competent persons cannot be doubted or sot at naught on the basis of a mere expectation and hops depending on ones correct or inflated notions of his own calibre. The result of the examination must necessarily depend on the subjective evaluation by the examinee of the objective performance of the examinee which in turn must necessarily depend on his merits. For the purpose of allotment of marks to a candidate, the U, P. Intermediate Education Act and the Regulations framed there-under require the appointment of examiners and they leave to the discrete of the examiners at to how many marks are to be allotted to each candidate in each examination papers or parts of it. It is for cha examiner to decide how many marks has to be given in each question or a part of question. Undoubtedly, the allotment of marks to a candidate by an examiner duly appointed to evaluate the answer books of the examinee should not be interfered with lightly but a situation may arise where exceptional circumstances may warrant a reconsideration. However, in the absence of any provision of in the Act or Regulations framed thereunder the Board or the examination committee or the results committee has no power to review the results of an examination once the same has been declared. 8. However, in the absence of any provision of in the Act or Regulations framed thereunder the Board or the examination committee or the results committee has no power to review the results of an examination once the same has been declared. 8. The Board of High School and Intermediate Education constituted under the provisions of U. P. Intermediate Education Act, 1921 stands vested with the power to make regulations for the purpose of carrying into effect the provisions of the Act and stands authorised to make regulations providing for the constitution power and duties of various committees for the purposes apart from the others, of conducting examinations, appoint neat of examiners and their duties and powers in relation to the Board examina tion etc. The Board further stands vested with ample jurisdiction to appoint various committees which include apart from others, the examination commit tee and the result committee which committees may exercise the powers delegated to them by the Board. It seems to ma that the procedure evolved by the Board for ensuring fairness and accuracy in evaluation of the answer books indicates that the whole system has been made as fool proof as can be possible. The Board is a very responsible body. The candidates who appear at the High School or Intermediate examination conducted by the Board appear at the examination with full awareness of the provisions contained in the Act and the regulations framed thereunder. The aforesaid provisions do not provide for a remedy of re-evaluation of the answer books of 110 examinees who appear at the examination. The omission in this regard appears to be deliberate. The provisions in the Regulations though entitle an examinee to seek scrutiny in regard to the totalling of the marks etc. do not entitle examinee to have his answer books re-evaluated. 9. If further seems to me that the ratio of the decision of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 , is clearly attracted in the facts and circumstances of the present case and the petitioner cannot be permitted to have a re-evaluation of his answer books under consideration simply on the strength of his expectation and hope depending on his notion about his calibre. 10. 10. The claim of the petitioner so far as the award of grace marks in both the subjects in which he had been declared to have failed is concerned also appears to be without any merit. The claim that since award of grace marks is permissible in one subject if the examinee secures therein only 25% marks having secured 40% in aggregate, the award of grace marks in another subject in which the examinee secures 25% marks should not be denied is totally misconceived and baseless. The respondent Board and its committees are comprised of members who can be reasonably expected to possess intimate knowledge and practical know-how and expertise ?n all matters pertaining to the field of education covered by the Act and the Legislature having entrusted to such a highly responsible body of professional men the task of framing regulations laying down the policy of working out the provisions of the Act, these regulations are in the nature of subordinate legislation having the force of rules framed under a statute amplifying and supple menting its provision by laying down how the legislative policy is to be carried into effect with respect to different situation that may arise. The policy laid down by the Board in regard to allotment of grace marks to the extent of 8 marks only and that too only in one subject wherein the examinee secures atleast 25 marks having secured in addition there to 40% marks in aggregate should not be interfered with by enlarging the scope of allotment of grace marks in more than one subject which enlargement is bound to result in lowering down of the standard of the education which will act be in public interest. 11. In view of my conclusions indicated hereinabove, no justifiable ground has been made out for any interference by this Court, while exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction envisaged under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 12. The writ petition is be no order as to costs accordingly dismissed. There shall, however, Petition dismissed. .