SECRETARY, DEPARTMENTAL EXAMINATION BOARD, KARNATAKA ELECTRICITY BOARD, VS. P. R. KULKARNI ( 1 ) HAVING failed in the departmental examination, S. A. S. Part-II held in the month of August 1991, the respondent-I herein filed a writ petition in this Court for issuance of appropriate directions to get his papers re-evaluated as he had expected more marks than awarded to him. During the pendency of the writ, answer paper No. IV pertaining to Commercial Accounting system and Internal Audit was got re-evaluated by the Examiner but the respondent 1 did not pass. On his prayer Sri Sadanand, Advocate, who had served as Deputy Accountant General before his retirement was appointed as a Commissioner/evaluator and on the basis of his report the writ petitioner was declared to have passed the examination in the aforesaid paper vide the judgment impugned in this appeal. ( 2 ) SOME of the facts necessary to be noticed for disposal of the appeal are that the Karnataka electricity Board has prescribed several departmental examinations for various categories of posts existing in the Electricity Board. The Service Regulations of the Electricity Board provide for the conduct of the examination for which a Special Board is constituted. S. A. S. is one of the examinations prescribed for Assistants and Senior Assistants. Passing of the aforesaid examination is a pre-requisi-te for promotion to the cadre of Assistant Accounts Officer which is an Officer cadre post. The S. A. S. examination consists of two parts. The respondent 1 was a candidate for the S. A. S. Part-II examination. In one of the papers. e. , KEB Accounts Manual - vol. III, the respondent was awarded 26 marks out of 100 marks. The KEB Accounts Manual paper deals with Commercial Accounting system necessary for the KEB officers and the staff. The examination is intended to test the theoretical and practical knowledge of the officials in the subject. The examinees are permitted to refer to the books on the subject. The answer papers are valued by the Senior officers of the KEB having the requisite knowledge and experience in the subject. The Regulations of the Board do not provide for revaluation of answer papers. Retotalling is however permissible. Having failed, the respondent filed the petition which was allowed under the circumstances as noted herein earlier. The answer papers are valued by the Senior officers of the KEB having the requisite knowledge and experience in the subject. The Regulations of the Board do not provide for revaluation of answer papers. Retotalling is however permissible. Having failed, the respondent filed the petition which was allowed under the circumstances as noted herein earlier. The judgment of the learned Single judge has been assailed mainly on the ground of being without jurisdiction and contrary to the laws settled by Apex Court and this Court. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned Counsel for the appellant and the first respondent who has appeared in person, and perused the record. Besides making oral submissions, the respondent who appeared in person submitted his arguments in writing with prayer for dismissal of the appeal. ( 4 ) THE respondent has submitted that he has been subjected to victimisation by the KEB examiners on the Departmental Examination Board. According to him his paper was undervalued. The act of the Examiners on the Examination Board is stated to be a crime against humanity, violation of human rights and violation of Article 16 of the Constitution of India, The order of the learned Single Judge has been styld strictly according to law and in the interests of justice. ( 5 ) WE have not found any ground in the submissions of the respondent which could have persuaded us to come to the finding that the action of the appellant amounted to the crime against humanity, violation of the human rights or contrary to the guarantee of Article 16, as alleged in the written submissions. ( 6 ) IT has not been disputed before us that the rules governing the conduct of the examinations do not make any provisions for revaluation. No candidate appearing in an examination has got any vested right to demand revaluation of his papers. The mere belief of a candidate of having fared well in the examination does not warrant the interference by the Court. In academic matters this court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution would be reluctant to interfere unless the aggrieved person is in a position to show the violation of any rule or law or any order having the force of law. In academic matters this court in exercise of its power under Article 226 of the Constitution would be reluctant to interfere unless the aggrieved person is in a position to show the violation of any rule or law or any order having the force of law. The interference may also be necessitated where the prima facie allegations of mala fides are made out or violation of any fundamental right is alleged. In the instant case none of the conditions noted by us were made out for invoking the jurisdiction of this Court in exercise of its writ powers. The learned Single Judge appears to have ignored various judgments of the Apex Court and this Court on the subject. The Apex Court in maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Another v Paritosh bhupesh Kurmarsheth, held that the High Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act. In the instant case, the appellant in their wisdom, had made rules which do not provide for revaluation of the answer sheets or answer books of a candidate appearing in a departmental examination. In the absence of the existence of a rule the direction for revaluation was neither warranted nor justified. The Court further held: "29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice". ( 7 ) A Division Bench of this Court in Subramanian Bharathi S. v Registrar (Evaluation), bangalore University , dealt with similar question regarding the scope of judicial review pertaining to revaluation of answer scripts of the students and relying upon Paritosh Bhupesh kur-marsheth's case, supra, concluded. "in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Supreme Court referred above, we are of the view that the ratio decided by this Court in Rekha Viswanath Ganachari v Registrar (Evaluation), Bangalore University, cannot be construed as postulating correct proposition of law touching upon the subject-matter of Revaluation (Revision) of answer scripts. The petitioner in this writ petition is therefore not entitled to the reliefs sought for". ( 8 ) THIS Court in Vaijayanthi v Karnatak University, Dharwad, has held that: "it is not for the Court to decide if there has been irregularity, in-consistency or negligence on the part of the examiner and direct re-valuation of the answer books". ( 9 ) AS noted earlier the writ petitioner had not referred to any illegality, irregularity or violation of any statutory provision or rules justifying the revaluation of his paper in which he had failed. No valid reasons were assigned or noticed by the learned Single Judge which could be termed to be actuated by extraneous considerations. On mere assumptions of the respondent-writ petitioner with respect to his proclaimed merit in the examination, the learned Single Judge was not justified in invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution. The judgment impugned in this writ petition is therefore not sustainable. ( 10 ) ACCORDINGLY the appeal is allowed by setting aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge with a direction the writ petition filed by the respondent shall be deemed to have been dismissed and the rule issued discharged. No costs.