JUDGMENT A. K. PATNAIK, J. — The petitioner is a student of Ken¬driya Vidyalaya, Barpali, Sambalpur. He appeared in the All India Secondary Schools Examination, 1999 bearing Roll No. 5129845. When the result of the examination was published, the petitioner was shown absent in the result sheet published by the Central Board of Secondary Education. The petitioner took up the matter with the opp.party No.3. The opp.party No. 3 asked for a report from the Principal of Guru Nanak Public School which was the centre from which the petitioner appeared in the said examina¬tion. Thereafter the Principal, Guru Nanak Public School, Sambal¬pur, informed the opp.party No.3 that the petitioner had appeared in all the subjects in the examination. The result of the peti¬tioner was published but the certificate was not issued to the petitioner. Thereafter he took the Annual All India Senior School Certificate Examination, 2001. The results of the said examina¬tion were published, but the petitioner failed in the Mathematics Paper securing only 17 marks. He took the compartmental examina¬tion only in Mathematics and again failed securing 29 marks. Aggrieved, the petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer to direct the opp.parties to issue the certificate for the All India Secondary Examination, 1999 and for re-evaluating his answer papers in Mathematics in the Senior School Certificate Compartmental Examination, 2001. 2. On 11.1.2002 after hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and opp.parties this Court directed the opp.parties 1 and 3 to get the certificate in respect of the Examination, 1999 counter-signed by the Principal of the School and to produce in the Court on the next date. On 25.1.2002 the certificate counter-signed by the Principal of the School was produced before the Court and handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner Mr. S.K. Purohit. 3. Thereafter on 28.6.2002 the Court examined the Mathe¬matics answer paper of the petitioner for the Senior School Certificate Compartmental Examination, 2001 and observed that before the Court proceeds any further, the Mathematics teacher of the petitioner should have look at the said answer paper of the petitioner in Mathematics and directed the Mathematics teacher of the petitioner to appear before this Court. Pursuant to the said order, the Mathematics teacher of the petitioner examined the Mathematics answer script of the petitioner and expressed the option that the petitioner should have been awarded at least pass mark. 4. Mr. Pursuant to the said order, the Mathematics teacher of the petitioner examined the Mathematics answer script of the petitioner and expressed the option that the petitioner should have been awarded at least pass mark. 4. Mr. Mohapatra, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that since the Mathematics teacher of the petitioner has given the opinion that the petitioner should have been given at least pass mark, this is a fit case in which this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution should direct the opp.parties to give pass mark to the petitioner in the Mathematics paper. In support of his submission, Mr. Mohapatra cited the decisions of this Court in Manas Ranjan Dash & others v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa & another, 1996 (II) OLR 592, and Arundhati Sahoo v. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & another 1996 (I) OLR 512. 5. Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the opp.parties, on the other hand submitted that the revaluation of answer scripts of any candidate is not provided in the Bye Laws of the C.B.S.E. He further argued that C.B.S.E. has it own experts for evaluation and it is well settled that the evaluation made by the said experts of an examining body should not be interfered with by the Court on the basis of the opinion of another expert not appointed by the examining body. 6. We find lot of force in the submissions of Mr. Patnaik, learned counsel for the opp.parties. In Manas Ranjan Das and in Arundhati Sahoo (supra) cited by Mr. Mohapatra, this Court has held that the power of judicial review in matters relating to valuation of answer papers is very limited and unless compelling reasons are shown, the Court will not interfere with the valua¬tion made by the experts. In fact, in an unreported decision in Yoshodhara Padhi v. Council of Higher Secondary Education, Orissa & others, a Division Bench of this Court had interfered with the valuation made by the examiners appointed by the Council of Higher Secondary Education by referring the matter to a retired Professor of Utkal University, but, on an appeal being filed, the Supreme Court held : “......There is no rule permitting revaluation of answers given by a candidate, in the absence of any such rule, no exami¬nee has a right to insist for the revaluation of his answer books. The Council of Higher Education appoints examiners for examining answers given by the examinees and they are authorized to award marks in accordance to their Judgment and discretion. Since the rules do not provide any revaluation of the answers, the marks awarded by the examiners appointed by the Council ac¬quire finality and no other authority has power to reassess the same for the purpose of awarding marks. In such a case the Court should not direct for the revaluation of the answer books of an examinee unless there are compelling reasons for the same. If there are allegations of mala fide which are founded on good grounds, or if it is found that the answer books of an examinee could not be assessed by the examiner, the Court may direct for the revaluation of the answers. However, this should be done only in rare cases where a very strong ground is made out for adopting such a course. But even if the Court finds it necessary to get the answer books revaluated it must be carried out by the examin¬ers approved and appointed by the examining authority and not by an outsider agency.” 7. This being the position of law as laid down by the apex Court, we are not inclined to interfere in the marks awarded to the petitioner in Mathematics merely because the Mathematics teacher of the petitioner has opined that the petitioner should have been awarded at least pass mark. 8. For the aforesaid reasons, the writ petition is dis¬missed. There shall be no order as to costs. The answer paper of the petitioner will be returned to the opp.parties after ninety days from today. CH. P. K. MISHRA, J. I agree. Petition dismissed.