ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioner who appeared in Senior School Certificate Examination, 2001, filed the present writ petition praying for issue of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to revaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner of four subjects (Physics, Mathematics, English and Computer ). Counter affidavit and supplementary counter affidavit have been filed by the respondents. ( 2 ) I have heard Sri Ashok Nath Tripathi counsel for the petitioner and Sri H. N. Pandey appearing for the respondents. ( 3 ) PETITIONERs case as set out in the writ petition, is that the petitioner has been a very brilliant student throughout his career. Petitioner in the writ petition has given the marks achieved by him from Class I to Class X. Annexure-18 to the writ petition is detailed chart showing the name of the Institution and the percentage of marks received by the petitioner. Petitioners case is that in Secondary Education Examination, 1998, the petitioner was awarded 95% marks. Petitioner has stated in the writ petition that after passing his Secondary Education Examination the petitioner was selected, for further studies for two years pre University course on the Scholarship given by Singapore Air Lines. Petitioner took admission at Singapore from where he passed Class XI examination. Petitioner has further stated while in Class XII the petitioner got seriously ill in Singapore and was brought to India. Petitioner appeared in Boards Examination, 2000 and has been declared pass with84. 6% marks. Petitioner in the writ petition has stated that the petitioner was expecting that he would secure 95% marks or more but he was surprised when he secured only 84. 6% marks in the Central Board of Secondary Education Examination. Petitioners case in the writ petition is that he approached respondent No. 1 at Allahabad and made representation to him for revaluation of his answer sheets but the respondent No. 1 refused the request made by the petitioner saying that there is no such provision in C. B. S. E. Board Examination Bye-laws. Petitioner further stated that if instant evaluation is made petitioner would not get less than 95% marks. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS in the counter-affidavit has stated that Central Board of Secondary Education Examination, New Delhi is a society which has framed bye-laws for conduct of examination. On the basis of the aforesaid facts the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus. ( 4 ) RESPONDENTS in the counter-affidavit has stated that Central Board of Secondary Education Examination, New Delhi is a society which has framed bye-laws for conduct of examination. Bye-law 61 has been quoted in the counter-affidavit which pertains to verification of marks obtained by a candidate in a subject. Bye-law 61 (i) provides that no revaluation of the answer book or supplmentary answer book shall be done. Respondents case is that there is no provision of revaluation of the answer books of a candidate. It has been stated that the Board is conducting the examination throughout the country within the prescribed schedule. Result of the examination has to be declared every year at the prescribed time. Lakhs of candidates are appearing every year in the Boards examination and their results are to be declared after evaluation of the answer sheets, the results of the Board must come to a finality at some point of time and in case revaluation is permitted then the result of the Board will never come to finality. Every candidate will apply for revaluation of the answer books and it would not be possible for the Board to conduct the next examination. As a policy matter revaluation of the answer books is not prescribed in the examination bye-laws of the Board. It has further been submitted that the petitioner has no legal right to claim for revaluation of his answer book and no mandamus can be issued directing for revaluation of the answer books. ( 5 ) CENTRAL Board of Secondary Education has framed bye-laws namely, Examination Bye-Laws of the Central Board of Secondary Education. The aforesaid bye laws have been made effective with effect from 31-1-1995. The counsel for respondent has submitted a copy of bye laws. The bye laws provide detailed procedure pertaining to examination conducted by the Board. Chapter VII pertains to Scheme of Examination and Pass Criteria. Chapter VIII under the heading confidential Work deals with qualifications for appointment of Paper Setter/moderator. Rule 51 of this Chapter provides for evaluation, Rule 52 provides for marketing scheme. Rule 55 provides for Examiners, their qualifications and Rule 61 which deals with verification of marks obtained by a candidate in subject, is relevant for the controversy and is quoted below :-"61. Rule 51 of this Chapter provides for evaluation, Rule 52 provides for marketing scheme. Rule 55 provides for Examiners, their qualifications and Rule 61 which deals with verification of marks obtained by a candidate in subject, is relevant for the controversy and is quoted below :-"61. Verification of marks obtained by a Candidate in a subject :- (i) A candidate who has appeared at an examination conducted by the Board may apply to the concerned Regional Officer of the Board for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answers have been evaluated and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and that the marks have been transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book and to the award list and whether the supplementary answer book (s) attached with the answer book mentioned by the candidate are in tact. No revaluation of the answer book or supplementary answer book (s) shall be done. (ii) Such an application must be made by the candidate within one month from the date of the declaration of results. (iii) All such applications must be accompanied by payment of fee as prescribed by the Board from time to time. (iv) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to, revaluation of his/her answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer book (s) or other documents. (v) A candidate shall not be entitled to refund of fee unless as a result of the verification his/her marks are changed. (vi) In no case the verification of marks shall be done in the presence of the candidate or any one else or his/her behalf, nor will the answer books be shown to him/her or his/her representative. (vii) Verification of marks obtained by a candidate will be done by the officials appointed by or with the approval of the Chairman. (viii) The marks, on verification will be revised upward or downward, as per the actual marks obtained by the candidate in his/her answer book. (ix) The communication regarding the revision of the marks, if any, shall be sent to the candidate within a reasonable period of time. (viii) The marks, on verification will be revised upward or downward, as per the actual marks obtained by the candidate in his/her answer book. (ix) The communication regarding the revision of the marks, if any, shall be sent to the candidate within a reasonable period of time. (x) The Board will not be responsible for any loss or damage or any inconvenience caused to the candidate, consequent on the revision of marks or delay in communications for reasons beyond control. (xi) The Board shall revise the marks statement in respect of such candidates after the previous marks statement is returned by the candidate. (xii) The decision of the Chairman on the result of the verification of marks shall be final. " ( 6 ) RULE 61 provides that a candidate who has appeared in an examination of the Board may apply to the concerned Regional Officer of the Board for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answer books have been evaluated and there is no mistake in total of marks of each question and the marks have been transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book. ( 7 ) RULE 61 further contains a provision that no revaluation of the answer book or supplementary answer book shall be done. The examination of the Central Board of Secondary Education is thus conducted under the bye laws which in detail prescribe the procedure of examination, evaluation and all other connected matters. The bye laws only permit verification of marks and specifically contain a provision of prohibiting revaluation of the answer book of every student who appears in the Board Examination. There is uniform procedure of examination and its evaluation conducted by the Board. The petitioner appeared in the examination conducted by the Board in accordance with the bye laws and subject to procedure and rules prescribed therein. Rule 61 provides only for verification of marks obtained by a candidate in subject hence the petitioner can avail only that benefit which is provided under the bye laws. When the bye laws specifically prohibit the revaluation the petitioner cannot ask this Court to issue direction to the Board to act to the contrary to the bye laws. Rule 61 provides only for verification of marks obtained by a candidate in subject hence the petitioner can avail only that benefit which is provided under the bye laws. When the bye laws specifically prohibit the revaluation the petitioner cannot ask this Court to issue direction to the Board to act to the contrary to the bye laws. In the writ petition there is no challenge to bye law 61 which itself provide that there will be no revaluation of the answer book. ( 8 ) BEFORE the Apex Court a similar provision pertaining to Maharashtra Secondary and Higher Education Board Regulation arose in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 . In the aforesaid case Regulation 104 was under consideration. Regulation 104 was almost similar in nature as bye laws 61 quoted above. Regulation 104 is extracted below :-"104. VERIFICATION OF MARKS OBTAINED BY A CANDIDATE IN A SUBJECT. (1) Any candidate who has appeared at the Higher Secondary Certificate examination may apply to the Divisional Secretary for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answers have been examined and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and transferring marks correctly on the first cover page of the answer book and whether the supplements attached to the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of the answer book or supplements shall be done. (2) Such an application must be made by the candidate through the head of the junior college which presented him for the examination, within two weeks of the declaration of the examination results and must be accompanied by a fee of Rs. 10. 00 for each subject. (3) No candidate shall claim, or be entitled to revaluation of the answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer books or other documents as these are treated by the Divisional Board as most confidential. "before the Apex Court Regulation 104 (3) which provided that no candidate shall be entitled to revaluation was under challenge. The High Court had declared the Regulation 104 (3) ultra vires. Apex Court while considering Regulation 104 (3) held as under :-"24. "before the Apex Court Regulation 104 (3) which provided that no candidate shall be entitled to revaluation was under challenge. The High Court had declared the Regulation 104 (3) ultra vires. Apex Court while considering Regulation 104 (3) held as under :-"24. This takes us to the question concerning the validity of the provision contained in clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation 104, which provides that no revaluation of the answer books or supplements shall be done and that no candidate shall claim or be entitled to claim a revaluation of his answer books. This aspect has been dealt with in the separate judgment of the Division Bench delivered by Mohta, J. On persual of the judgment it will be seen that the entire reasoning therein is based on the conclusion recorded in the judgment of Deshpande, J. delivered in the first group of cases. That the provision contained in clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation 104 prohibiting the disclosure and inspection of answer book is liable to be struck down on the ground of unreasonableness as well as on the ground of its being ultra vires the scope of the rule making power conferred by Section 36 (1) of the Act. Making this as the starting point of his reasoning Mohta, J. has proceeded to observe that the " logical end of permitting inspection and disclosure of answer books and other documents is to permit revaluation and that "no useful purpose will be served by having inspection and disclosure in case further right of revaluation is denied". Based on such an approach, the learned Judge has proceeded to state that there was no justification whatsoever to restrict the obligation of correcting of mistake only to verification and exclude revaluation from the operation of Regulation 102. " Accordingly, it was held that clauses (1) and (3) of Regulation 104 insofar as they prohibit revaluation, are also void on the ground of unreasonableness. "the Apex Court further held in paragraphs 25 and 26 as reproduced below :-"25. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . The validity of the prohibition against disclosure and inspection having been thus upheld by us, the entirety of the reasoning contained in the judgment of Mohta, J. in support of his conclusion invalidating prohibition against revaluation contained in clauses (1) and (3) of Regn. 104 loses its foundation. . . . . . . . . . . . . The validity of the prohibition against disclosure and inspection having been thus upheld by us, the entirety of the reasoning contained in the judgment of Mohta, J. in support of his conclusion invalidating prohibition against revaluation contained in clauses (1) and (3) of Regn. 104 loses its foundation. The view expressed by the learned Judge that Regn. 102 (2) which confers on the Board a suo motu power of amending the results wherein it is found that such a result has been affected by any error, malpractice, fraud, improper conduct etc. will be rendered nugatory and ineffective by the prohibition on revaluation is fallacious and unsound. While discussing the scope of the said regulation, we have pointed out that its purpose and effect is only to confer a suo motu power on the Board to correct errors. In cases where irregularities like mal practices, misconduct, fraud, etc. are found out and it does not confer any right on the examinees to demand any correction of the result. In the scheme of the regulations after the publication of the results the only right which examinees have in relation to this matter is to ask for a verification of the results under Clause (1) of Regulation 104 and the scope of such verification is subject to the limitations imposed in the said clause as well as in Clause (3) of the very same regulation". "26. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Viewed against this background, we do not find it possible to agree with the views expressed by the High Court that the denial of the right to demand a revaluation constitutes a denial of fair play and is unreasonable. The Board is a very responsible body. The candidates have taken the examination with full awareness of the provisions contained in the Regulations and in the declaration made in the form of application for admission to the examination they have solemnly stated that they fully agree to abide by the regulations issued by the Board. In the circumstances, when we find that all safeguards against errors and mal practices have been provided for, there cannot be said to be any denial of fair play to the examinees by reason of the prohibition against asking for revaluation. In the circumstances, when we find that all safeguards against errors and mal practices have been provided for, there cannot be said to be any denial of fair play to the examinees by reason of the prohibition against asking for revaluation. " ( 9 ) IN view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the aforesaid judgment the petitioner has no right to claim revaluation of his answer books. Counsel for the respondents have also relied on the judgment of this Court reported in (2000) 1 Education Service Cases 460 : (2001 All LJ 897), Subhash Chand v. State of U. P. The learned single Judge of this Court relying on Apex Courts judgment held in paragraph 5 as under (of SC) : (Para 6 of All LJ) :-"5. The question is whether in absence of any statutory rule this Court can direct rechecking or revaluation of the answer books of the petitioners. The petitioners appeared in B. T. C. entrance examination 1998-99 and were decalreed unsuccessful. Answer books could be revalued or rechecked if the rules provide for it. In absence of any statutory rule the answer books cannot been rechecked or revalued by the respondents nor such a relief can be granted by this Court. The petitioners may be good students but that cannot entitled them to make self assessment and claim that they should have been awarded 90% marks. If self assessment is adopted as the basis of evaluating answer books in an examination and this Court is asked to interfere on this ground then the entire system of competitive examination shall come to a standstill and this Court shall stand converted into an evaluating body of answer books. " ( 10 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has placed reliance on single Judge judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1996 All 281 , Dr. Rakesh Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University, Varanasi. The case of Rakesh Kumar Singh was a case in which the petitioners have challenged the decision of the Controller of the Examination by which the result of the entrance examination of the petitioners in M. D. /m. S. (Ayurved) Post Graduate Course was cancelled. The Court took the view that it was obligatory on the respondents to afford opportunity to the petitioners before passing the order of cancelling the examination. The Court took the view that it was obligatory on the respondents to afford opportunity to the petitioners before passing the order of cancelling the examination. The Court in the aforesaid case took the view that there is no ground for cancelling the examination. The aforesaid judgment does not help the petitioner nor help his submission that revaluation of answer book can be directed even there is no provision in bye laws. Another judgment cited by the counsel for the petitioner is AIR 1998 All 218 Vivek Kumar Singh v. Banaras Hindu University. In the aforesaid case the petitioner has claimed that question booklet supplied to the petitioner missed one sheet containing questions 29 to 50 and questions 146 to 165 in spite of the petitioners bringing into notice to the invigilator the question booklet was not replaced. The University took the stand that the aforesaid defect was pointed out after one hour of the commencement of the examination whereas the instruction No. 11. 6 of the Information booklet provided that the candidate within ten minutes of the issue of the question booklet had to check and ensure that all the pages are there. In the aforesaid circumstances the Court held in following words (Para 9) :-"the University cannot make a candidate to suffer by default nor can it project its own fault on the candidate of supplying incorrect question booklet. The petitioner, in my opinion, is entitled to be recompensated by proportionate evaluation vis-a-vis the missing questions delineated in the body of this judgment. In other words the petitioner shall be deemed to have answered correctly the missing questions in the same proportion in which he has answered correctly the question contained in the answer sheet supplied to him and his merit vis-a-vis other students who appeared in PMT PAT-1996 shall be determined on the basis of the marks obtained by him as a result of the evaluation of his answer sheet in the aforesaid manner and in case the petitioner is found to have secured marks equal to or more than the marks secured by the last candidate in the list he shall be admitted to First Year MBBS course or to B. Pharmacy Part I as the case may be, along with students of 1997 batch. In case, the petitioner does not qualify, he may be intimated accordingly. In case, the petitioner does not qualify, he may be intimated accordingly. " ( 11 ) THE above judgment of the learned single Judge also does not support the contention of the petitioner nor that judgment is an authority on the issue raised in the writ petition. The aforesaid judgment is not applicable on the facts of the present case. With regard to grievance raised by the petitioner in the Supplementary affidavit dated 18-6-2001 that question No. 2 (c) was wrongly set. In supplementary counter affidavit the respondents have stated in paragraph 3 that the question No. 2 (c) was detected to be incorrect and instructions were issued to the authorities and examiners to treat the said question to be cancelled and to award four marks to ach candidate. The petitioner has been awarded 4 marks (full marks) with respect to question No. 2 (c) while evaluating the answer books of Computer Science subject. In view of the above, there was no prejudice caused to the petitioner nor on that basis any ground for revaluation can be made. 12. From the above discussion, it is clear that the petitioner has not made out any case for grant of relief as prayed in the writ petition. The writ petition is accordingly dismissed. .