JUDGMENT D. Raju, C.J.—The above writ petition has been filed seeking for the issue of a writ of mandamus directing the respondents to produce the answer-sheet of the petitioner in the Court and that the same may be ordered to re-evaluate by some well qualified person and in the alternative a prayer is also made that the respondents may be directed to grant grace mark equal to 1% of the total marks, as per the Rules. The petitioner claims in the petition filed that he was a student, who appeared in +2 examination couducted by the respondents in the year 1997 vide Roll No. 2215910, the result of which was said to have been declared on 9.5.1997 and as per the marks statement issued by the Board, he was awarded only 18 marks though according to the petitioner, he had faired well in the examination. He appears to have again appeared in August 1997 in the compartment examination in respect of Mathematics paper and he again was said to have been awarded only 21 marks. In the appearance again made in the compartment examination held in April 1998 as misfortune would have it, the petitioner was awarded 28 marks out of 100 marks. The petitioner claims that he was expecting 66% marks in the paper but to the utter dismay he was given only 28 marks and he attributes this to the alleged casual and callous manner of evaluating the answers or evaluating the answer papers for awarding marks. It is also stated that the petitioner is an intelligent and meritorious candidate, that he faired well in the other papers and subjects and that he had qualified the National Defence Academy examination in the year 1997 in which Mathematics plays a very pivotal role and is rather a deciding factor and that, therefore, he would contend that there is every need and justification for complying with the relief sought for. A vague ground of a foul play of victimising the petitioners life and career is made with a further claim that it calls for the indulgence of this Court. 2. A vague ground of a foul play of victimising the petitioners life and career is made with a further claim that it calls for the indulgence of this Court. 2. Notice has been ordered to the respondents and the respondents have filed a reply contending that there is no rule in the examination Bye-laws of the respondent-Board for re-evaluation of answer-sheet, that the Honble Supreme Court of India in SLP No. 17165/93 decided on 5.11.1993 held that no direction can be issued for introduction of re-evaluation system and since there is no provision for re-evaluation, the same cannot be permitted. It is also contended that there was no challenge to the marks obtained by the petitioner at the appropriate time of examination on earlier occasions and the same was accepted as correct even by the petitioner himself and that is how he was appearing again and again and in the last examination in which he participated also he secured only 28 marks out of 100 marks. The petitioner was said to have applied for scrutiny and re-checking of the paper, which was said to have been done and even after re-checking it was found that the marks awarded were correct and he was accordingly informed vide Annexure P-5 and that inasmuch as no mistake whatsoever was found as a result of scrutiny of marks and re-checking of result in Mathematics paper of the petitioner, no interference is called for in this writ petition. In answering certain Newspaper cuttings filed by the petitioner as Annexure P-6, the respondents disputed and denied the correctness of the same. While dealing with the claim of the petitioner about his expectation of 66% marks, it is stated that it is merely a guess with no basis therefor in the teeth of the results notified and the information given after re-checking of the paper also. As for the grace marks claimed, it is stated that the petitioner is entitled to 1% as grace mark in the compartment examination and even after giving such mark, it should be only 29 marks in the subject of Mathematics which does not change the status of the petitioner from fail to pass and it is in such circumstances, the grace mark of one was not given to the petitioner. 3. 3. The learned counsel for the petitioner with great force and strenuously contended that since it involves the future career of a student, this Court must intervene in the matter by issuing direction, as prayed for and that at any rate according to the petitioner re-evaluation is not prohibited as such and courts were countenancing the claim for re-evaluation also on occasions warranting such course. In support of the said claim, our attention has been invited to the order of a Division Bench of this Court dated 147.1993 in C.W.R No. 897/93 to which one of us (Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.) is a party and another order dated 7.6.1995 of a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No. 685/95, as also the judgment of the learned Single Judge of Patna High Court reported in Sheodhari Prasad Sah v. State of Bihar and others, AIR 1990 Pat 196. The order passed in CWP No. 897/93 does not as a principle decide the right of any one candidate in an examination to have re-evaluation or provide for any such re-evaluation. On the other hand, it appears to have proceeded on certain concession also by the respondents. In CWP No. 685/95, a mere direction appears to have been given without any reason or objectively considering any principle of law as such and we are unable to comprehend as to what made the earlier Division Bench to issue such a direction. At any rate, such orders passed without any reason by way of certain directions only cannot operate as any precedent, particularly when we are obliged to decide the issue in the teeth of the stand taken by the respondents, in the absence of any provision in the scheme governing the examination in question for re-evaluation. The decision reported in AIR 1990 Pat 196, not only pertains to a civil services competitive examination, but one rendered in the peculiar circumstances of the case when it was found that the answer paper was missing and can have no relevance or application to the case in hand. The respondents except filing counter-affidavit in this Court are not represented at the time of hearing by any Counsel. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the respective stand taken in the pleadings. The respondents except filing counter-affidavit in this Court are not represented at the time of hearing by any Counsel. 4. We have carefully considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner in the light of the respective stand taken in the pleadings. It is by now well settled that there is no provision in the scheme under our consideration for any re-evaluation of answer papers and courts have already been not only deprecating the claim made in a routine manner for re-evaluation, but even demands made for introducing a system of re-evaluation has been rejected as indicated from the order of the apex Court. No doubt, in extra-ordinary situations and on proper making out of a full proof case on some concrete materials, the Courts do sometimes interfere and that too by virtue of its inherent powers involved in the exercise of the powers of the judicial review and issue directions when required on being satisfied of the need to do so. Apart from the absence of specific provision for re-evaluation, the case on hand needs to be considered from the stand point as to whether a case has been sufficiently made out. Except throwing accusation of indifference or callousness on the part of the authorities in evaluating the answer sheet of the petitioner in the subject of Mathematics, nothing concrete has been brought out to satisfy this court to take the extra-ordinary steps to intervene. It is not stated either in the petition or in any rejoinder as to what are the questions that have been attempted by him and in what manner he has attempted the answer of such questions, which could justify his expectation as sought to be espoused. On the other hand, the consistent miserable performance of the petitioner in the examination said to have been held in April 1997. August 1997, the results of which has not been challenged even by the petitioner is an indication of the standard of the petitioner in the subject concerned and we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the teeth of earlier failures the petitioner would have done well subsequently. August 1997, the results of which has not been challenged even by the petitioner is an indication of the standard of the petitioner in the subject concerned and we are unable to persuade ourselves to agree with the learned Counsel for the petitioner that in the teeth of earlier failures the petitioner would have done well subsequently. A person like the petitioner, who has failed and has been undertaking compartment examination would have worked hard and faired well is a baseless assumption not warranted by any reason and, the courts cannot embark upon such surmises on certain vague notions of doing justice by interfering in the matters of the nature in question even in the absence of even any slender material vitiating the results. In the absence of any satisfactory basis being made out before us to show that the petitioner has been wronged and convincing us to countenance such an extra-ordinary relief now sought for, we are unable to come to the rescue of the petitioner. Consequently, we see no merit whatsoever in the grievances sought to be projected in this writ petition. The writ petition, therefore, fails and shall stand dismissed. No costs. Petition dismissed.