ORDER Dipak Misra, J. 1. Both the writ applications being interlinked and interconnected were heard analogously and are disposed of by this common order. For the sake of clarity the facts of W.P. No. 4473/99 are adumbrated herein. 2. Invoking the extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court the petitioners, who had prosecuted their studies in Saraswati Shishu Mandir, Raigarh and appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, M.P., Bhopal (in short 'the Board') in the month of March, 1999, have approached this Court for issuance of a direction to the Board for revaluation of the answer papers in the subject of Higher Mathematics on the ground that the said answer books have not been properly valued and further to appoint an impartial expert for revaluation. 3. It is averred in the writ petition that the petitioners have excelled in other subjects but due to erroneous valuation in the subject of Higher Mathematics they have been awarded low marks and, therefore, their career has been affected. Ordinarily this Court would have rejected the prayer of the petitioner at the very threshold but considering the nature of allegations which also encompass an assertion that though the answers in respect of certain questions are correct, zero mark has been awarded, and certain answers have not at all been valued by the examiner. To test the correctness of the allegations made, this Court issued notices and, thereafter, by order dated 28-10-99 thought it appropriate to scrutinise the answer papers, and accordingly, a direction was given to produce the answer papers in the aforementioned subject. On the next date of hearing matter was adjourned to 15-11-99. Mr. S.L. Saxena, learned counsel for the Board, fairly stated that he has brought the examiner who had valued the answer papers in the subject of Higher Mathematics. The petitioners who are personally present in Court pointed out that certain answers do tally with the model answers supplied by the Board and some answers are correct as per the solvations given in other books. On a perusal of the answer books it is also noticed by this Court that certain questions have not been valued by the examiner. Mr. Saxena, learned counsel, fairly accepted the position that some questions have really been not valued. The examiner who is present in Court also accepted that some questions have been erroneously valued. On a perusal of the answer books it is also noticed by this Court that certain questions have not been valued by the examiner. Mr. Saxena, learned counsel, fairly accepted the position that some questions have really been not valued. The examiner who is present in Court also accepted that some questions have been erroneously valued. It is also admitted by him that some questions have not been valued due to inadvertence. 4. This Court in the case of M.P. Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Ku. Vinita Rupra, 1998 (1) MPLJ, 595 held that in absence of any provision for revaluation in the Regulations of M.P. Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1965 revaluation is not permissible. Later on in L.P.A. No. 63/99 in the case of Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, M.P., Bhopal v. Ku. Nidhi Shrivastava and Anr., the Division Bench, while allowing the Letters Patent Appeal and reversing the decision of the learned Single Judge directing revaluation in respect of subjects, namely, Hindi, English, Sanskrit and Social Science, speaking through Lord the Chief Justice expressed thus :-- "In the present case, we find that the candidate got 68 marks in English, but on revaluation the marks were enhanced to 73. The candidate got 37 marks in Hindi and on revaluation, secured 44 marks. In Sanskrit, the candidate secured 39 marks which were enhanced to 47 marks. In Social Science, the candidate got 76 marks and on revaluation, got 94 marks. Therefore, this step taken by the learned Single Judge is against the provisions of the Act and Regulations framed by the Board. Where some allegations of malafides have been levelled or where the questions are non-descriptive in nature like Mathematics where the answer is one or where objective questions are put their answer is one, it is understandable." 5. This Court has been apprised of the fact that if a student has arrived at the correct answer but proceeded in a different method than the one provided in the model answers or has proceeded with correct method/model method and has got the erroneous answer, he ordinarily would be awarded some marks as per the instructions of the Board. The same has not been done in the present case. The same has not been done in the present case. Quite apart from the above, when it has become perceptible that some answers are correct as per the model answers but no marks have been awarded in respect of the same and some questions have not at all been valued. The whole scenario exposits that there has been non-application of mind by the examiner in the process of valuation of the answer papers. This is an exception and, if I may say so, an exception which has been carved out in the case of Ku. Nidhi Shrivastava (supra). I may profitably quote a passage from the case of Ku. Vinita Rupra (supra) wherein this Court observed as under :-- "The Board should take proper measures against those examiners who have committed such glaring mistakes by properly admonishing them or rather denying them further examination of the copies. We do not want to lay down any guidelines and we leave it to the Board who is the best judge in the matter. We only direct that proper care should be taken in appointing examiners and to see that the students are carefully and honestly be dealt with." Dealing with the difficulty of the Board in the matter this Court further observed :-- "Learned counsel for the Board informs that examiners are mostly government teachers and in the case where teachers/examiners were found wanting, matter has been taken by the Board with the Government and some of them are facing disciplinary action. Be that as it may, we leave it to the Board for doing needful in the matter as the career of the students is involved. We, however, caution the Board that no leniency be shown to errant examiners and they should be severely dealt with as the students' career are involved and it can be spoiled by reckless examination of their answer-sheets." This caution was expressed on 12-9-97. Two years have rolled by but the agony of the likes of the petitioner subsists. I am conscious that when lacs of examinees appear and number of examiners are to be appointed to value the answer papers it is really an uphill task. But the Board being Board has to perform and make an endeavour to achieve perfection as far as possible within human limits, by showing Himalayan calmness, olympian poise, patience of job and wisdom of Soloman. 6. But the Board being Board has to perform and make an endeavour to achieve perfection as far as possible within human limits, by showing Himalayan calmness, olympian poise, patience of job and wisdom of Soloman. 6. Now to the relief claimed. Mr. Saxena, learned counsel for the Board, unreservedly expressed his anguish after seeing the answer papers. This Court records appreciation for the objective approach shown by Mr. Saxena. Mrs. J. Choudhary, learned counsel for the Board in W.P. No. 4697/99, was also very fair in her approach when she stated that the marks have not been awarded in accordance with the model answers given by the Board and instructions issued by the Board have not been correctly applied. Hence, it is thought apposite that the answer papers of the present petitioners should be revalued by an expert appointed by the Board and accordingly I so direct. It is further directed that this exercise shall be completed within a period of four weeks from today and the result of such revaluation shall be intimated to the petitioners immediately. 7. In W.P. No. 4697/99 the prayer of the petitioner No. 2 is for revaluation in the subject of Hindi and Chemistry. In absence of any provision in the Regulation for revaluation and the subjects being descriptive in nature I am not inclined to entertain the prayer. That apart, nothing has been putforth to show perversity of approach. As far as petitioner No. 1 is concerned his prayer is for revaluation of answer books in the subjects of Higher Mathematics and Biology. Prayer relating to revaluation in the subject of Biology is not acceptable and the same is accordingly negative. However, as far as revaluation in the subject of Higher Mathematics is concerned his prayer stands in the similar footing and in view of the previous discussion his case shall be governed by the direction issued above. 8. As far as the examiner, Mr. Rajeev Sharma, presently working in Government School Nayagaon in the District of Chhatarpur is concerned it is expected that the Board shall rise to the occasion and do the needful. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Dy. A.G. who is present in Court undertakes that he would intimate about the decision of this Court to the Commissioner, School Education so that he can take appropriate steps. Mr. Ajay Mishra, learned Dy. A.G. who is present in Court undertakes that he would intimate about the decision of this Court to the Commissioner, School Education so that he can take appropriate steps. While furnishing the list of teachers he shall see that teachers with experience and knowledge are appointed as examiners so that the career of the young students is not jeopardised by the hands of reckless examiners. Every examiner must remember that he is a 'Guru' and he is not holding an ordinary job. He builds the future generation at a primary stage, and hence, it should be his primary duty that he elevates himself to the pedestal of 'Guru' and perform his 'Dharma'. 9. With the aforesaid direction the writ petition is accordingly disposed of.