Judgment :- The petitioner after completing his +2 examinations held during April, 2000 got admission to the first year B.E.(Computer Science) Degree Course in the second respondent college namely, Sri Balajee Chockalingam Engineering College, Irumbedu during October, 2000. In the first year examinations held in May, 2001 the petitioner had secured more than 62% of marks in all the ten subjects. Hence, he was promoted to the second year of B.E. Degree course. The petitioner wrote the third semester examinations conducted during October, 2001 and secured more than 63% of marks in all the nine subjects. The petitioner appeared for the fourth semester examinations held during April, 2002 and had secured more than 56% of marks in all the nine subjects. However, in the fifth semester examinations written by the petitioner during October, 2002 the petitioner, though had secured more than 71% of marks in seven subjects, was awarded only 39% marks in subject code No.CS 501 (Discrete mathematics) and 42% marks in subject code No.CS 507 (System Software). 2. In view of the continuous good performance of the petitioner in almost all the subjects in the previous semesters, the petitioner felt that the marks awarded in these two subjects were low and in the absence of any provision for revaluation, the petitioner applied only for re-totalling. In fact by letters dated 2.1.2003, the Principal of the second respondent college wrote to the Controller of Examinations namely, the first respondent recommending for consideration for revaluation, as the petitioner had constantly secured very good marks in the class tests and the marks awarded in the subject codes in question were low and accidentally something has gone wrong somewhere in respect of these two subjects. Similar requests were also made by the Heads of the Department concerned of the second respondent college to the Controller of Examinations on the same date. A lecturer in system software in her letter of even date had also requested the Controller of Examinations for verification of marks, though there is no specific provision for revaluation. These requests for revaluation could not be considered by the University for want of provision for revaluation under the Statutes. A lecturer in system software in her letter of even date had also requested the Controller of Examinations for verification of marks, though there is no specific provision for revaluation. These requests for revaluation could not be considered by the University for want of provision for revaluation under the Statutes. Since there is a provision for re-totalling, the application of the petitioner dated 3.1.2003 was taken into consideration and the marks awarded in the two subjects in question were re-totalled and the petitioner was informed that there was no change in the re-totalling. 3. In the circumstances, the petitioner has approached this Court with the prayer questioning the order of the first respondent dated 3.2.2003 in communicating the petitioner that there was no change in the re-totalling. The petitioner has filed the details of the marks obtained in the first year, third, fourth as well as the fifth semester examinations. In all these examinations, the petitioner had secured atleast more than 60% of marks. The statement of marks issued for the fifth semester is also annexed to the typed-set of papers. Out of nine subjects which the petitioner wrote in the Vth semster examination held during October, 2002 he was awarded more than 71% marks in all the subjects and in fact he had secured 100 marks in the subject code CS 508, 97 marks in the subject code CS 509, 88 marks in the subject code CS 506. But the petitioner was awarded only 39 marks in the subject code CS 501 and 42 marks in the subject code CS 507. Considering the overall good performance of the petitioner in almost all the subjects in all the semesters and having considered the fact that in the event the petitioner is declared failed in these two subjects he may be awarded a lesser rank in the Degree, as he will be considered as a student who has not cleared all the subjects in one attempt and also considering the recommendations of the Principal, Heads of the Department concerned and the lecturer, this Court directed the learned standing counsel for the University to furnish a list of examiners for both subjects so as to enable this Court to appoint the examiners for the two subjects to re-scrutiny the answer scripts, as an exceptional case, by order dated 16.10.2003. Accordingly, a list was furnished containing four names and this Court in the said order appointed Dr.V.Ramamurthy, Professor and Head of the Department in Mathematics, SRM Engineering College, Kattankulathur as examiner to value the answer script in subject code CS 501 and Prof.A.Anthony Irudayaraj, Professor and Head in Computer Science, Hindustan College of Engineering, Padur, Kelambakkam as examiner to value the answer script in subject code CS 507. Pursuant to the said directions, the respective examiners have valued the answer scripts and have returned the answer scripts to this Court in sealed covers. After the re-scrutiny, the petitioner has been awarded 76 out of 80 marks in the subject code CS 501. The said 76 marks are against 19 marks awarded earlier. Similarly, the petitioner was awarded 41 out of 80 marks in the subject code CS 507. The said 41 marks are against 22 marks awarded earlier. It is well settled law that in the academic matters this Court will be very slow to interfere, as the matter should be left to the decision of the experts in the academic field. It is equally well settled law that in the absence of any regulation for re-valuation that too, in the matter of examinations, as the results in the examinations should reach its finality, this Court will not order revaluation. But there are exceptions to this settled position of law under special circumstances. This Court directed re-scrutiny considering the fact that the petitioner has a good academic record in almost all subjects in all the semesters, except the two subjects in question. This Court had also taken note of the recommendations of the Principal, the Heads of the Department concerned in the subjects in question as well as the lecturer in system software uniformly recommending for re-scrutiny of marks, as the petitioner had a brilliant academic career throughout in all the examinations which he had taken earlier. Hence, this Court directed the re-scrutiny as an exceptional case. 4. Under similar circumstances, this Court had exercised its discretion for such revaluation, though it was called as re-scrutiny, in the following judgments. (1) "R.RAJESH v. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER (AIR 1993 MADRAS 181)", (2) "G.RADHIKA v. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS, MADRAS-5 AND OTHERS (1993 W.L.R. 384)", (3) "DR.SHYAMALA XAVIER v. THE REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU DR.MGR MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, MADRAS AND THREE OTHERS (1993 W.L.R. 945)", (4) "MINOR S.SUREN REP. (1) "R.RAJESH v. UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS AND ANOTHER (AIR 1993 MADRAS 181)", (2) "G.RADHIKA v. THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS, UNIVERSITY OF MADRAS, MADRAS-5 AND OTHERS (1993 W.L.R. 384)", (3) "DR.SHYAMALA XAVIER v. THE REGISTRAR, TAMIL NADU DR.MGR MEDICAL UNIVERSITY, MADRAS AND THREE OTHERS (1993 W.L.R. 945)", (4) "MINOR S.SUREN REP. BY FATHER GUARDIAN K.SUBRAMANIAM v. THE DIRECTOR OF GOVT. EXAMINATIONS AND OTHERS ( 1995 (1) CTC 358 )" and in W.P.No.8886 of 1995 dated 14.8.95 by Justice V.Shivraj Patil, as he then was. 5. Following the above line of judgments, it is reiterated that though in the absence of a provision for revaluation, the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is not restricted in issuing direction for re-scrutiny of the answer scripts depending upon the facts of the particular case. 6. Factually, in this case, as against 19 out of 80 marks awarded earlier in the subject code CS 501, the petitioner has now secured 76 marks out of 80 marks with a vast difference. Similarly, as against 22 out of 80 marks awarded earlier in the subject code CS 507, the petitioner has now secured 41 marks. In both the subjects the petitioner has secured more than 60% of marks and in fact in subject code CS 501, as against 39% of marks awarded earlier, the petitioner has now secured 96% of marks. In that view of the matter, the marks awarded by the respective examiners after the directions of this Court should be taken into consideration for the purpose of issuing the statement of marks to the petitioner in respect of the Vth semester examination held during October, 2002. 7. In view of the above, the writ petition is allowed and the petitioner is declared to have passed the subject code CS 501 with 76/80 marks and the subject code CS 507 with 41/80 marks in the examinations held during October, 2002. It is also made clear that the petitioner should be treated as a candidate who has successfully completed the examination at the first attempt for the purpose of awarding any rank in the Degree. It is also made clear that the petitioner should be treated as a candidate who has successfully completed the examination at the first attempt for the purpose of awarding any rank in the Degree. The respondent University is directed to issue fresh statement of marks to the petitioner for the fifth semester examination held during October, 2002 with Regn.No.8006908 by awarding the marks after the revaluation as per the directions of this Court in both the subjects in question within a period of fifteen days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Each of the examiners is entitled to a sum of Rs.750/- for the work undertaken by them, which amount has been paid by Mr.P.Jyothimani, learned counsel for the pettiioner to the learned standing counsel for the respondent University, who shall in turn pay the same to the concerned examiners. 8. With the above direction, the writ petition is allowed. No costs. Consequently, W.P.M.P.No.9696 of 2003 is closed.