JUDGMENT : Susanta Chatterji, J. - It is an unfortunate case of an examinee of Indian School Certificate Examination conducted by the Council at New Delhi. The Petitioner has asked for the following reliefs: Issue Rule Nisi calling upon the opposite parties to show cause as to why the impugned Regulation of the Statute should not be quashed and why the impugned marks awarded under Annexure-1 in respective answer papers of the Petitioner should not be scrutinised; And why the opposite parties 1 and 2 should no~ be directed to publish the result of the Petitioner after such scrutiny and issue her a correct mark-sheet; And if the opposite parties fail to show cause or show insufficient or false cause make the said rule absolute... 2. The Petitioner expecting a better result appeared at the Final Examination conducted by the Council of Indian Certificate of Secondary Education Examination (in short "I.C. S. E,") 1994 from Blessed Secrament High School, Puri. She has secured 83 percent of mark in English, 80 percent in Oriya, 69 percent in History; Civics and Geography, 54 percent in Mathematics, 60 percent in Science, Physics, Chemistry and Biology and 64 percent in Economics. She was awarded 'A' Senior Grade. She has a grievance that her papers have not been properly checked up. She has asked for rechecking.of the subjects detailed in the writ petition. It is averred that the Petitioner being a bright student appeared 1. C.S. Examination having Roll No. T 389/019 and done very well in the examination held on 1-3-1994 and expected 80 to 90% marks. As she always scored high marks in her annual class examinations and test examination for I.C.S.E.. After the result was declared on 26-5-1994 the Petitioner was surprised to see that her mark sheet indicated 68.2% marks. It is further stated that she performed well in the Examination and she apprehends that there might be some error somewhere while posting the marks from the examination papers to the ledger or some answer scripts might have escape the notice of the concerned examiner at the time of valuation. 3. It is stated that as per Regulation the accuracy of a subject awarded will be checked on request in one subject only per candidate provided that the Principal of the School forwarded the application. 3. It is stated that as per Regulation the accuracy of a subject awarded will be checked on request in one subject only per candidate provided that the Principal of the School forwarded the application. The Petitioner is aggrieved to such Regulation and mentioned that in Mathematics paper in which she had hoped to get 90% marks she has secured only 54% but this has not been sent by the Principal for rechecking. The Principal expressed his inability to recommend the other papers for rechecking as his power of recommendation is confined to only one paper as prescribed under the Rule. The Petitioner has requested the Principal to forward her application for rechecking Mathematics or Science answer papers but instead of forwarding the applications for rechecking the aforesaid answer papers the Principal recommended for rechecking the answer paper in Social Studies. Being aggrieved by and dis-satisfied with the such state of affairs the Petitioner has challenged the impugned order marks awarded under Annexure-1 the mark sheet and also the impugned Regulation of the Statute. 4. The writ petition is seriously contested by the opposite parties. It is disclosed inter alia, that the Council has no knowledge about the brilliance of the Petitioner. It is submitted further that the accuracy of marks/performance in a subject/ grade can be checked on the request of the Principal of the concerned school in one subject only per candidate as per the Rules governing the procedure of evaluation of the answer papers framed by the Council as there are very few chances of errors creeping through the process of results. It is clarified that the results of the candidates are to be processed and declared as earliest as possible after the examination is over to enable the candidates to apply for further studies in various courses under other institutions throughout the Country. A copy of the application received from the Principal for rechecking the answer papers of the Petitioner in Social Studies paper is annexed to the counter as Annexure A/1. 5. At the time of final hearing our attention is drawn to relevant Regulation for holding I.C.S.E. certificate. The relevant portion as to enquiries concerning examination result is quoted hereinbelow: 1. Enquiries concerning examination results 1. 5. At the time of final hearing our attention is drawn to relevant Regulation for holding I.C.S.E. certificate. The relevant portion as to enquiries concerning examination result is quoted hereinbelow: 1. Enquiries concerning examination results 1. All enquiries concerning examination results on behalf of school candidates must be made to the Secretary of the Council by the Principal of the School concerned and must reach the Council's office, not.later than the specified date. Schools are asked to bear in mind that a large number of answer scripts are remarked by Chief Examiners before the award. Enquiries should be restricted to results which are significantly below the standard suggested by the candidate's school work in the subject. 2. The accuracy of a subject grade a warded will be checked on request in one subject only per candidate provided that the Principal of the School forwards the applications. Such applications must be made in the proforma prescribed by the Council and must be received in the Council not later than one month after the receipt of the results by the Schools. Schools will be required to pay the fee for each recheck as prescribed by the Council from time to time. The recheck will be restricted to checking whether all the answers have been marked, and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in the subject and transferring marks correctly on the first cover page of the answer book, and whether the continuation sheets attached to the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. The term 'recheck wheresoever appearing in this Regulation and/or in any Rules framed by the Council shall not mean or include reevaluation of answer script or other work done by the candidate as part of the examination... (i) No candidate shall claim or be entitled to re-evaluation of disclosure or inspection of the answer scripts or other documents as these are treated as most confidential by the Council. 6. The Petitioner is not asking for revaluation. Precisely she has prayed for, rechecking of her answer papers mainly in Mathematics and Science. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphasises and highlights before us to a part of the Regulation which enables a candidate to ask for rechecking only one subject. 6. The Petitioner is not asking for revaluation. Precisely she has prayed for, rechecking of her answer papers mainly in Mathematics and Science. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner emphasises and highlights before us to a part of the Regulation which enables a candidate to ask for rechecking only one subject. Our attention is drawn in greater emphasises to the portion "the accuracy of a subject grade awarded will be checked on request in one subject only per candidates provided that the Principal of the School formards the application. 7. Mr. S. Patnaik, learned Counsel for the Petitioner argues that such a Regulation is not only contrary to commonsense but also inconsistent with reasonableness and fairness. It is not just and proper to confine an application of the candidate for rechecking only to one subject per candidate. If there are errors in answer papers of one candidate in more than one subject can he not asked for rechecking terms of the Regulation made by the Council itself. If the Council prohibits re-evaluation but permits rechecking on technical or clerical ground as they appear to be, why such rechecking should be confined to one subject alone. If the errors are crept in one paper it can be crept in more than one papers. The Petitioner has made out a specific case that she has applied for rechecking of Mathematics and Science papers. Admittedly she has scored more than 80% in literature subjects. Admittedly, her examination results are always better and bright. It is not appreciated by us as to why the Principal has confined to the Rule and preferred to recommend for rechecking of History, Civics and Geography. It is strongly argued on behalf of the Council that this Regulation prohibits the Petitioner to ask for rechecking in one subject and the Principal has taken the responsibility to forward the application in the prescribed proforma as the situation permits. 8. It transpires that the present writ petition was admitted on 23-2-1995 and the interim order was made on issuing notice that until further orders all the answer papers of the Petitioner bearing Roll No. T 389/019 of the 1. C.S. Examination of 1994 shall be preserved. The learned lawyer for the Council submits, inter alia that the Council has a Regulation to preserve the answer scripts for 60 days after publication of the result. C.S. Examination of 1994 shall be preserved. The learned lawyer for the Council submits, inter alia that the Council has a Regulation to preserve the answer scripts for 60 days after publication of the result. The Council was intimated about the interim order long after the notice was issued. The Council has taken a point that if the Principal has forwarded application of the Petitioner relating to History. Civics and Geography subject that has been checked up 'and communicated and the case of the Petitioner about the grievance relating to papers Mathematics and 'Science was not brought to the notice of the Council at all. If the Principal has not forwarded the application of the Petitioner there is no obligation on the part of the Council either to preserve the papers or to cause rechecking of the answer papers and to communicate the result in the manner as indicated. 9. Patiently, we have heard and considered the grievances of the Petitioner and the stand taken by the Council. In fact, the Petitioner has two fold grievances and the points of adjudication are as follows: 10. First the Petitioner is aggrieved about the impugned Regulation which permits rechecking of only one subject to a candidate. We have scrutinised that point. We have found that such Regulation permitting rechecking to one subject to a candidate as quoted above appears to be unjust, unfair and contrary to commonsence and inconsistent with just and fair play. If error is possible in one subject then there are possibilities of having errors in more than that. If error can be checked up in one subject it is not understood why the error cannot be checked up in more than one subject. This types of Regulation cannot be allowed to remain as the same appears to be unfair and not for the benefit of the student community at large. For the fitness of things and to establish the judicial principle of law we are of the clear view that such Regulation cannot be allowed to remain in force. We find that such a Regulation permitting rechecking of one subject per a candidate in 1994 Examination is deemed to be quashed and found to be ultra vires and that will not be of any force and appropriate writ should be issued commanding the Council of I.C.S.E. not to give effect to such Regulation any further. 11. We find that such a Regulation permitting rechecking of one subject per a candidate in 1994 Examination is deemed to be quashed and found to be ultra vires and that will not be of any force and appropriate writ should be issued commanding the Council of I.C.S.E. not to give effect to such Regulation any further. 11. Regarding the second point about rechecking of the marks of the other papers we find that the Petitioner has obtained an interim order that the answer paper should be preserved. The learned Counsel for the Council, had drawn our attention to a general observation of Rule, that papers are preserved for sixty days after, publication of the result. In case the answer papers are well there pursuant to the interim order there should be every endeavour, on the part of the Council to cause rechecking of those answer papers if available. If the answer scripts have been destroyed already the authority to recheck the answer scripts which are honest when on the score bona fide the interim order was made. As per the Regulation the answer scripts might not have been pre,served which has, crossed the date line of 60 days. 12. We dispose of the writ petition permitting the Petitioner to make a proper representation to the Council immediately and the Council has to check up whether in terms of the order of this Court dated 20-3.1995 the answer scripts have been preserved properly 'arid if the same would be available there may be rechecking. In the event the- answer scripts are not there the Council can take notice of the annual examination and -its date where the' Petitioner appeared in the 'relevant' subject and/or can take such steps where there may be genuine grievance or the part of the Petitioner. Such exercise should be completed within three months from the date of filing of the representation. We, however make no, observation as to the merit about rechecking or whether the Petitioner's' apprehension is genuine or otherwise. With such observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No costs. D.M. Patnaik, J. 13. I agree. Writ petition disposed of.