M. H. S. ANSARI, J. ( 1 ) THE brief facts leading to the filing of the above writ petition are that; (1)the petitioner is a student of City College of Commerce in B. Com course under the University of Calcutta. The petitioner appeared in B. Com (Part-I Hons.) Examination conducted by the University of Calcutta in the year 1997. The petitioner was not amongst the successful candidates, when the results were declared and has been awarded poor marks in the Honours subjects as under; (I)paper-I (ABEH) : 21 out of 100 total marks. (II)paper-II (ACCH) : 27 out of 100 total marks. (III)paper-III (CTXH) : 34 out of 100 total marks. The petitioner was awarded an aggregate of 122 marks in the group-III and based thereon, the petitioner was declared to be passed in B. Com. Part-I examination without any honours and without any division. ( 2 ) THE petitioner has questioned the vires of the Revised Rules for re-examination of answer scripts of BA/b. Sc. /b. Com. examinations which was published by University vide Notification No. CSR/3/94 and which came into effect from 2nd February, 1994 whereby only such candidates who have secured at least 40% of the total marks in the remaining honours papers, can seek re-examination of not more than two theoretical honours papers. It may be appropriate to extract the relevant portion of the said revised rules as amended by the Syndicate of the University of Calcutta, in so far as it is relevant for the purpose of present enquiry, it reads as under; b. A. /b. Sc. /b. Com. Part-I (Hons.) Examination. "a candidate who failed or passed the Part-I (Hons.) Examination can seek re-examination of not more than two theoretical Pass Papers, provided he/she secured at least 40% of the total marks in the remaining Honours Papers/pass Papers as the case may be. Such candidate can also seek re-examination of one theoretical Honours Papers and one theoretical Pass Paper provided he/she secured at least 40% of total marks in the remaining Honours Papers and Pass Papers separately. " ( 3 ) SINCE, the petitioner in the instant case has not been awarded 40% of the total marks in the theoretical Honours papers, the petitioner by virtue of the aforesaid rule, is not permitted to apply for re-examination of two theoretical Honours papers. " ( 3 ) SINCE, the petitioner in the instant case has not been awarded 40% of the total marks in the theoretical Honours papers, the petitioner by virtue of the aforesaid rule, is not permitted to apply for re-examination of two theoretical Honours papers. The petitioner has, therefore, questioned the validity of the said revised rules as being ultra-vires of the provisions of the Constitution of India and sought for a consequential direction to the respondents authorities to re-examine the answers scripts of the petitioner in compulsory Honours papers of B. Com. Part-I (Hons.) Examination held in the year 1997 and after such re-examination to publish the results. ( 4 ) AT the outset, it may be noted that the authority or the competence of the University to make/revise the rules as to re-examination of answers scripts, is not in questioned. The challenge is founded on the ground of unreasonableness and unjust and arbitrary classification and thereby violative Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 5 ) THERE can be no dispute with the proposition submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the classification must not be arbitrary and that the classification must have rational nexus with the object sought to be achieved. ( 6 ) A bare reading of the rule, extracted above, however, would show that all candidates whether failed or passed Part-I Examination can seek re-examination of not more than two theoretical Honours papers. The only condition being that the candidates should have secured at least 40% of the total marks in the remaining Honours papers. There is no classification as such, which can be said to be either invedious or discriminatory. The rule is applicable to all students whether passed or failed, subject of course to the condition prescribed therein which again is applicable to all the students alike whether passed or failed. The condition being that in the remaining papers, the candidates should have secured at least 40% of the total marks in the examining Honours papers. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to contend that the classification has been made between the candidates who secured at least 40% of the total marks in the remaining honours papers and the candidates who have not so secured 40% marks in the remaining honours papers. ( 7 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioner, however, sought to contend that the classification has been made between the candidates who secured at least 40% of the total marks in the remaining honours papers and the candidates who have not so secured 40% marks in the remaining honours papers. In other words, it is the contention of the petitioner that an arbitrary classification is made amongst unsuccessful candidates and thereby, the unsuccessful candidates who have not secured 40% of the total marks in the remaining papers have been classified separately and discriminated against having their answers scripts re-examined. The said classification, it is contended is arbitrary and has no nexus with the object sought to be achieved beside being unreasonable and thus violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and for that reason, it is liable to be struck down. ( 8 ) MR. Dipankar Dutta, learned counsel for the respondent University contended that a candidate has no right to seek re-examination of his answers scripts save in accordance with the rules prescribed therefor. In the instant case, it was contended that the said right is circumscribed by the condition which unless fulfilled the petitioner, has no right whatsoever. Mr. Dutta, learned advocate for the respondent University after referring to and relying upon the averments made in the affidavit-in-opposition submitted that the impugned rules have been framed by an expert body and the restrictions relating to seeking of re-examination of not more than two theoretical papers is in the realm of policy decision. The said rule is in the nature of subordinate legislation and is not open to challenge on the ground of its being unreasonable. Mr. Dipankar Dutta in support of his submissions relied upon the judgments of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 and Arun D. Desai v. High Court of Bombay, through Chief Justice and Ors. , reported in 1984 (supp) SCC 372 and Dipta Kumar Sinha Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in 100 Calwn 113. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth, reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 and Arun D. Desai v. High Court of Bombay, through Chief Justice and Ors. , reported in 1984 (supp) SCC 372 and Dipta Kumar Sinha Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors. , reported in 100 Calwn 113. ( 9 ) IN Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education case (supra), the Supreme Court was dealing with the question whether, under law a candidate has the right to demand an inspection, verification and revaluation of the answers books and whether the statutory regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board in so far as they categorically stated that there shall be no such right can be said to be ultra-vires, unreasonable and void. The Supreme Court disagreed with the reasons stated by the High Court that since "every student has a right to receive fair play in examination and get appropriate marks matching his performance" it will be a denial of the right to such fair play if there is to be a prohibition on the right to demand revaluation and unless a right to revaluation is recognised and permitted there is an infringement of rules of fair play. What constitutes fair play depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. It was further observed therein that it is in the public interest that the results of public examination 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 uncertainity, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter con-fusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. A word of caution was sounded by the Supreme Court in the following terms:"??? 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. 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 consequence which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposes to a pragmatic one were to be proponded. It is equally important that the court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provisions, rule or bye law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. ???"while dealing with the validity of the regulations, it was held, that it was not for the court to examine the merits and demerits of a policy laid down by regulation making body because its scrutiny has to be limited to the question as to whether the impugned regulations fall within the scope of the regulation making power conferred on the delegate by the statute. It was further held that any draw backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion it is not wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purpose of the act. ( 10 ) IN Arun D. Desai v. High Court of Bombay through Chief Justice and Others reported in 1984 (suppl) SCC 372 it was observed that the students who failed in their examinations are generally prove to make allegations to explain their failure and to console themselves with the thought that, not they but the examiners are to blame. The court understands the anguish of the petitioner at his failure but it had no power to pass him. The apex court dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that it was not shown how the assessment of the answer book was defective arbitrary or partial. The court understands the anguish of the petitioner at his failure but it had no power to pass him. The apex court dismissed the writ petition inter alia on the ground that it was not shown how the assessment of the answer book was defective arbitrary or partial. ( 11 ) IN Dipta Kumar Sinha Chowdhury v. State of West Bengal and Ors. reported in 100 Calwn 113, Justice N. K. Batabyal has considered a somewhat similar contention with regard to the post examination scrutiny of answers scripts of the petitioner who appeared for the Higher Secondary examination and was dissatisfied with the marks given in all the subjects. The judgments of the Supreme Court referred to above as also some of the judgments of this High Court have been referred to in that case and while negativing the claim for production of answers scripts before court for judicial inspection to enable the petitioner to look into the answers scripts and for proper aporaisal of the performance of the petitioner in that case, the principles emerging from the decisions of the Supreme Court were summarised, briefly, as under:"?????? It appears that the apex court of our land has laid down the general principle that the process of evaluation of answer scripts or of subsequent verification of marks does not attract the principles of natural justice. It is also in the public interest that the result of public examinations when published should have some finality attached them. If verification in the presence of the candidates or revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross uncertainty besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. The apex court has certainly emphasized that the candidates cannot demand verification and revaluation of the answer scripts as a matter of right. In the case of Arun D. Desai (supra), it has been laid down that the petitioner must show how the assessment of his answer books is defective, arbitrary or partial. Mere, allegation that his results are not in conformity with his performance in the examination is not enough as students who fail in the examination are generally prone to make such allegations. Mere, allegation that his results are not in conformity with his performance in the examination is not enough as students who fail in the examination are generally prone to make such allegations. ?????" ( 12 ) IN the instant case, there is no allegation that the examiners have any bias against the petitioner nor has the petitioner been able to show how the assessment of his answer scripts was defective arbitrary or partial. ( 13 ) ANY apprehension that an examinee may entertain about the marks awarded in any examination would have to be judged not purely on the expectation of the candidate but on the totality of the circumstances of the case. Where a candidate has performed exceptionally well or at least satisfactorily in some of the papers, may be, it can be contended that awarding of poor marks in the remaining papers lends credence to the apprehension that appropriate marks may not have been awarded to the candidate in the remaining subjects thereby giving rise to a claim for re-examination of those answers scripts. Where, however, a candidate has not faired satisfactorily in the examination, in all the papers, any apprehension that may be entertained by such candidate as to unfair treatment by the examiner would only be a surmise and conjecture. ( 14 ) THE university authorities in their wisdom have framed rules with respect to scrutiny, evaluation and re-examination of answers scripts, which they are so empowered to frame. The power of authority of the rule making authority is not questioned in the instant case. The rule prescribing the conditions, referred to supra, is questioned on the ground of violation of Article 14 of the Constitution. The condition imposed in the impugned rule is that only two theoretical papers in Honours papers can be so re-examined, if the candidate has secured at least 40% marks in the remaining papers. 40% marks is the minimum aggregate that the candidate should secure for obtaining a Honours degree. If the candidate has not secured, even that minimum percentage in the remaining Honours papers, it would hardly be fair for him to seek re-examination of his answers scripts on the apprehension that he has not been fairly treated by the examiner in the papers where his performance was dismal. The submissions of Mr. If the candidate has not secured, even that minimum percentage in the remaining Honours papers, it would hardly be fair for him to seek re-examination of his answers scripts on the apprehension that he has not been fairly treated by the examiner in the papers where his performance was dismal. The submissions of Mr. Dipankar Dutta to the effect that the impugned rule of re-examination is to provide opportunity to those candidates who have otherwise performed satisfactorily in the remaining papers but they obtained marks not upto their expectation in one or two papers to avail of re-assessment of their answers scripts in respect of those papers only has to be accepted. If unrestricted re-examination of answer scripts are permitted, the entire examination system would be thrown out of gear and such, course will not be in the public interest as it may lead to gross uncertainty besides leading to confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. The impugned rule in the circumstances is not open to the challenge on the ground of unreasonableness. ( 15 ) AS already noticed, both the categories of students passed or failed, constitute one single group or class and even assuming, as contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, that the classification of these students coming under two different groups has been made i. e. "fail students" and "pass students", the same is founded on intelegible differentia which distinguishes failed students from the passed students. In the instant case, however, by the impugned rule "failed students" and the "passed students" have been treated equally and not differently. Neither the failed students nor the passed students are subject to a disability for which there was no rational basis. For the said reason, the contention of the petitioner that the impugned rule is constitutionally void must fail. ( 16 ) IN the result, the above writ petition deserves to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to cost. Petition dismissed