JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J.— The petitioner appeared in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1998 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa held in the month of April, 1998. As per the results of the said examination, she secured second division with a total of 432 marks. In the said examination, she secured 46 out of 75 marks in Science Paper-I, 38 out of 75 marks in Science Paper-II and 29 out of 75 marks in Social Science Paper-II (Geography). Not satisfied with the said marks in Science Paper-I, Science Paper-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geography) she applied for checking of addition of marks by depositing a sum of Rs. 75/- with the Board of Secondary Educa¬tion, Orissa (hereinafter referred to as’ the Board’). But she was informed on 12.10.1998 by a communication of the Board that after such checking of addition of marks of the answer papers of the petitioner in the aforesaid three papers, there was no change in the marks secured by the petitioner. The petitioner then filed representations dated 29.10.1998, 23.11.1998 and 29.12.1998 for revaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioner in the said three papers. But since no action was taken for such revaluation, the petitioner has filed this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution for a direction to the opp.parties to revalue the answer scripts of the petitioner in the aforesaid papers. 2. By order dated 5.2.1999 this Court issued notice to the opp.parties for admission and final disposal and also directed that the answer papers of the petitioner should be preserved in the meantime. On 4.10.2001, the Court directed the opp.party No. 1 to produce the answer papers of the petitioner which were directed to be preserved by order dated 5.2.1999. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 23.8.2002 and 27.9.2002. On 27.9.2002 the Court directed that the answer scripts of the petitioner as ordered by the Court on 4.10.2001 will be produced before the Court. Thereafter, the matter was heard on 23.8.2002 and 27.9.2002. On 27.9.2002 the Court directed that the answer scripts of the petitioner as ordered by the Court on 4.10.2001 will be produced before the Court. On 27.11.2002 the matter was finally heard and it was stated before us by the learned counsel for the op.party No.1 that the answer books of the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 1998 were preserved in a store room adjacent to the C.I. Section along with other checking of addition of answer books pertaining to the case files of the legal cell, but they were completely destroyed during the Super Cyclone on 29th and 30th October, 1999 and for this reason, the opp.party No.1 is not in a position to produce the answer scripts of the petitioner. 3. At the hearing Mr. B.K. Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that fact that the opp.party No.1 is not able to produce the answer scripts of the petitioner in Science Paper-I, Science-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geography) would establish that the said answer scripts of the petitioners are not in existence at all. He submitted that since the said answer scripts of the petitioner were not in existence at all, there could be no checking of addition of marks and the communication dated 12.10.1998 of the Board to the petitioner that there was no change in the marks given to the petitioner in the said three answer scripts is not correct. Mr Patnaik further submitted that although this Court passed orders on 5.2.1999 for preservation of the answer scripts of the petitioner and thereafter on 4.10.2001 and 27.9.2002 for production of the answer scripts of the petitioner, the said answer scripts were not produced by the opp.party No.1 before this Court and no stand was taken in the counter affidavit in the main writ petition or in the counter affidavit in the Misc.Case No. 958 of 1999 that the answer scripts of the petitioner had been destroyed in the Super Cyclone of 1999 and cannot be produced before the Court and it is only at the time of hearing of the writ petition in the year 2002, for the first time, the counsel for the opp.party No. 1 stated before the Court that the answer scripts of the petitioner had been destroyed during the Super Cyclone of 1999. Mr Patnaik submitted that in such a case, where the answer scripts of a candidate are lost, the Court can direct the Board to declare the result of the petitioner by awarding marks in the missing papers on the basis of average of the marks of the petitioner in rest of the papers. In support of this submission, he relied on a deci¬sion of the Division Bench of this Court in Ajit Kumar Baral v. The Utkal University and others, A.I.R. 1990 Orissa 174. Mr Patnaik argued that if the principle as laid down by the High Court in Ajit Kumar Baral’s case (supra) is accepted, then the petitioner shall secure 60. 7% of marks in the missing papers, i.e., Science Paper-I, Science Paper-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geography) and she would get a first class in place of second class. 4. Ms. C. Kasturi, learned counsel for the opp.party No.1 relying on the counter affidavit filed by the opp.party No.1, on the other hand, submitted that after submission of an application for checking of addition of marks in Science Paper-I, Science Paper-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geography), a Committee of experienced subject teachers thoroughly checked the aforesaid three answer scripts of the petitioner and found that the marks originally awarded to the petitioner in the said three papers remained unchanged. She further submitted that the answer scripts of the petitioner were preserved in a store room adjacent to the C.I. Section along with other checking of addition of answer books pertaining to the case files of the legal cell but the same were destroyed at the time of Super Cycle on 29th and 30th of October, 1999 and for this reason, the opp.party No.1 could not produce the said answer scripts before the Court. 5. In Ajit Kumar Baral v. The Utkal University and others (supra) cited by Mr Patnaik, learned counsel for the petitioner, Ajit kumar Baral had appeared in B.Sc. Annual Examination, 1989 conducted by the Utkal University. But when the results were declared on 15.8.1989, the name of Ajit Kumar Baral did not find place in the list of candidates who had passed the examination. Ajit Kumar Baral then approached the Controller of Examination of Utkal University and learnt that five of his answer papers in Physics Honours and one paper in Chemistry were missing. But when the results were declared on 15.8.1989, the name of Ajit Kumar Baral did not find place in the list of candidates who had passed the examination. Ajit Kumar Baral then approached the Controller of Examination of Utkal University and learnt that five of his answer papers in Physics Honours and one paper in Chemistry were missing. Ajit Kumar Baral approached this Court under Article 226 of the Con¬stitution for a direction that the University should publish his results by applying the proportionate quotient method (commonly called as “P.C” method). While the writ petition was pending, the Utkal University declared the results of Ajit Kumar Baral by notification dated 20.10.1989 by applying the ‘PQ’ method and the petitioner was placed in the second class. The petitioner amended the writ petition and introduced and averment in the writ peti¬tion that the University had committed an error while applying the “PQ” method in finding out the average by taking into consid¬eration all the marks secured by the candidate both in back papers as well as the marks obtained in the current examination. The High Court held that the principle adopted by the University for determining the average under the ‘PQ’ formula is wholly erroneous and instead directed the University to declare the results of Ajit Kumar Baral by awarding marks in the missing Paper-7 in Physics by calculating the average on the basis of highest marks he had obtained in rest of the papers. In the present case, on the other hand, it is neither the case of the petitioner nor the case of the opp.party No.1 that the answer scripts of the petitioner in Science Paper-I, Science Paper-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geography) were missing right from the beginning. The answer scripts of the petitioner in Science Paper-II, Science Paper-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geogra¬phy) were available with the opp.party No.1 after the examination held in 1998 and were evaluated and on such evaluation, the petitioner had been awarded marks in the said three papers and a mark-sheet was also issued to the petitioner copy of which has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure-1, which would go to show that the petitioner had secured 46 out of 75 marks in Science Paper-I, 38 out of 75 marks in Science Paper-II, and 29 out of 75 marks in Social Science Paper-II (Geography). Thus, the decision of this Court in Ajit Kumar Baral v. The Utkal Universi¬ty and others (supra) does not apply to the facts of the present case. 6. In Sri Himansu Kumar Patel v. Board of Secondary Educa¬tion, Orissa and another * (W.P. (C) No. 374 of 2002 decided on 8.1.2003), a Division Bench of this Court has held that consider¬ing the fact that the system of evaluation of the Board has built-in provisions for ensuring that answer scripts of different candidates taking High School Certificate Examination are evalu¬ated properly and uniformly, the Court will not direct re-valuation of an answer script of a candidate except for compel¬ling reasons. Hence, the question to be decided in this case is whether there are compelling reasons for the Court to direct re-valuation of the answer scripts of the petitioner in Science Paper -I, Science Paper-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geogra¬phy). In the writ petition, the petitioner has only stated that she has passed M.E. Examination in first class and she has also done well in class promotion examination in VIII to XI and her performance in Class X was excellent. The petitioner, however, has not indicated in the writ petition the marks that she secured in Science Paper-I, Science Paper-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geography) in VIII, XI and X classes so as to show that there was a great difference between the marks that she had got in VIII, XI and X classes and the marks she has got in the High School Cer¬tificate Examination conducted by the Board in Science Paper-I, Science Paper-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geography). The petitioner has further stated in the writ petition that the marks that she has been awarded in Science Paper-I, Science Paper-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geography) are not upto her satis¬faction as her performance in the said papers are note-worthy and that she feels that there are some mistakes somewhere in those answer scripts for which the petitioner has been awarded low marks. But in the counter affidavit, the opp.party No.1 has stated that pursuant to the application of the petitioner for checking of addition of marks, the answer scripts of the peti¬tioner in the said three papers were thoroughly checked again by the appropriate committee of experienced subject teachers and the marks as originally awarded to the petitioner for each of the aforesaid papers have remained unchanged. It further appears that by a communication dated 12.10.1988 of the Board, the petitioner was informed that there was no change in the marks in the said three papers. The checking of addition of marks by the said committee therefore took place before 12.10.1998, but it was only in October, 1999, that the answer scripts of the petitioner are said to have been destroyed due to Super Cyclone. Thus, the contention of Mr. Patnaik that the aforesaid answer scripts of the petitioner were not in existence when the checking of addi¬tion of marks was done is not correct. No compelling reason has been made out by the petitioner in this case for the Court to direct revaluation of her answer scripts in the said three pa¬pers. 7. It is true that at a certain stage the Court had passed orders for production of answer scripts of the petitioner and pursuant to the said orders, the opp.party No.1 has not been able to produce the answer scripts of the petitioner. But the Court cannot direct the opp.party No.1 to ignore the marks that were awarded to the petitioner in Science Paper-I, Science-II and Social Science Paper-II (Geography) on the basis of evaluation done by the experts of the Board and instead award marks to the petitioner on the basis of the average marks in the rest of the papers on the ground of non-production of answer scripts of the petitioner in the said three papers unless the Court records a finding that the evaluation of the answer scripts of the peti¬tioner in the said three papers by the experts of the Board has been arbitrary, unfair or irregular. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, we find no merit in this writ petition and we accordingly dismiss the same. Considering however the facts and circumstances of the case, the parties shall bear their own costs. M. PAPANNA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.