JUDGMENT Gupta, J. 1. Appellant Ku. Neha Indurkhya has filed this appeal under Clause 10, of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 24.10.2002, passed in Writ Petition No. 4116/2002, whereby petitioner's petition seeking 'revaluation' of her answer-papers of the subjects of English, Physics and Mathematics was dismissed. 2. The appellant appeared in the Final Examinations for Class XII, conducted by respondent Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education in the year 2002. 3. The appeI1ant on her own assessment was expecting very good marks for her performance in the subjects of English, Physics and Mathematics. On receiving her mark-sheet she was shocked to note that she could secure only 12, 18 and 19 marks in the subjects of English (Gen.), Physics (Theory) and Mathematics. The appellant, therefore, applied for 'Retotalling of Marks' in the above mentioned three subjects, by depositing the requisite fee as per the relevant 'Regulation'. 4. The appellant being disappointed and frustrated on account of the non-fructuation of her hopes and expectation, based on self-assessment of her performance in the examination and labouring under an impression that her performance has not been properly evaluated, filed a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for a direction to the respondent to produce her answer-books of the above subjects in the Court and for 'Revaluation' of these answer-papers by a Competent Valuer. 5. The respondent Board in their return denied the appellant's averments and contended that in the year 2002, the Board has formulated new guidelines of valuation as a step towards making the examinations more valid, reliable, comprehensive and elaborate. It was further contended that the Board after receiving the appellant's application got her answer-papers of the subjects of English (General), Physics (Theory) and Mathematics verified and as no discrepancy or fault revealed, the appellant was informed about 'No Charge', in the marks obtained by her. 6. The learned Single Judge, on considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the petition. 7. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, the learned senior counsel, vehemently argued that the writ Court has erred in not directing the respondent for 'Revaluation' of the appellant's answer-papers of the subjects of English, Physics and Mathematics. 8. 7. Shri Rajendra Tiwari, the learned senior counsel, vehemently argued that the writ Court has erred in not directing the respondent for 'Revaluation' of the appellant's answer-papers of the subjects of English, Physics and Mathematics. 8. Shri P.D. Gupta, the learned counsel for the respondent Board, relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court, in thy case of M.P. Board of Secondary Education and another v. Ku. Vinita Rupra, reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 , contended that as there is no provision of 'Revaluation' in the M.P. Board of Secondary Education Regulations, the appellant's petition has rightly been dismissed. 9. Respondent Board is a statutory body constituted under section 3 of the M.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Act, 1965 (for short 'the Act'). It is the duty of the Board to take all necessary steps to make examinations more valid, reliable comprehensive and elaborate. Section 28, of the Act, confers powers on the Board to make Regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. In exercise of the said power, respondent Board framed regulations known as M.P. Board of Secondary Education Regulations, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as 'Regulations'). 10. Before considering the rival contentions of the learned counsel for the parties, it would be useful to reproduce regulation 119, of the Regulations, which reads as under: "119. A candidate who has appeared at an examination of the Board may apply to the Secretary for the scrutiny of his marks and the rechecking of his result in accordance with the rules framed by the Board.'' ‘The learned counsel for the appellant does not dispute that Regulations 119 does not expressly provide for 'Revaluation of Answer Papers'. 11. The desirability/permissibility of 'Revaluation of Answer Papers' in the examination conducted by the Board came up for consideration before the Apex Court, in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumar Sheth and others reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 . True, Regulation 104 of Maharashtra Regulations expressly bars 'Revaluation of Answer Papers' and there is no such corresponding express provision barring 'Revaluation of Answer Papers' in the Madhya Pradesh Regulations. 12. The Apex Court, in para 26 of the above case, observed as under: "26. True, Regulation 104 of Maharashtra Regulations expressly bars 'Revaluation of Answer Papers' and there is no such corresponding express provision barring 'Revaluation of Answer Papers' in the Madhya Pradesh Regulations. 12. The Apex Court, in para 26 of the above case, observed as under: "26. We are anable to agree with the further reason stated by the High Court that since 'every student has a right to receive fair play in examination and get appropriate marks catching his performance' it will be a denial of the right of such fair play if there is to be prohibition on the right to demand revaluation and unless a right to revaluation is recognised and permitted there is an infringement of rules of fair play. What constitute fair play depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. If it is found that every possible precaution has been taken and all necessary safeguards provided to ensure that the answers books inclusive of supplements are kept in safe custody so as to eliminate the danger of their being tampered with and that the evaluation is done by the examiners applying uniform standards with check and crosschecks at different stages and that measures for detection of malpractice etc. have also been effectively adopted, in such cases it will not be correct on the part of the Courts to strike down the provision prohibiting revaluation on the ground that it violates the rules of fair play. It is unfortunate that the High Court has set out no detail in either of its two judgments the elaborate procedure laid down and followed by the Board and the Divisional Boards relating to the conduct of the examinations, the evaluation of the answer books and the compilation and announcement of the results.... In the circumstances, when we find that all safeguards against errors and malpractices have been provided for, there cannot be said to be any denial of fair play to the examines by reason of the prohibition against asking for revaluation. 13. A Division Bench of this Court while interpreting regulation 119 of the Regulations, in the case of M.P. Board of Secondary Education and another v. Ku. Vinita Rupra (supra), observed in paras 6 and 7: "6. He have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 13. A Division Bench of this Court while interpreting regulation 119 of the Regulations, in the case of M.P. Board of Secondary Education and another v. Ku. Vinita Rupra (supra), observed in paras 6 and 7: "6. He have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. So far as the general principle of interpretation is concerned, there is no difficulty and we need not refer to all cases on the subject. Question before us is very limited whether the word 'scrutiny' appearing in regulation 119 and expression appearing in the rules framed by the Board at (A) 'for retotalling of the answer books examined' are to be construed to mean 'revaluation of the answer books' or not, with great respect, we do not agree with the view taken by learned Single Judge. The word 'scrutiny' has been defined in Random House Dictionary of the English Language as 'a searching examination or investigation, minute inquiry'. In the Legal Glossary, published by the Government of India, 'scrutiny' means 'examination of anything, an official examination of the votes cast at an election in order to eliminate any votes that are invalid and to rectify or confirm the numbers stated in the return'. In the Webster's New International Dictionary, word 'scrutiny' has been defined to mean 'to search carefully'. In Words and Phrases, permanent edition, West Publishing Company, the word 'scrutiny' means to 'examine or observe closely in detail, to investigate minutely without any suggestion of criticism or suspicion. Chambers English Dictionary explains 'scrutiny' as close, careful or minute investigation or examination. 7. So far as the dictionary meaning of the word 'scrutiny' is concerned, it means close examination. But the word 'scrutiny' is further qualified by the word 'marks'. Thus, what is to be scrutinised is the marks and it does not mean revaluation of the answers given by the students in the answer books. Learned Single Judge has proceeded to extend the meaning of the words 'scrutiny' to mean 'revaluation of the answer books of the candidates'. Scrutiny of marks only means that the marks of the candidate shall be minutely examined by the authorities. Had the word 'scrutiny of the answer books' been mentioned without qualifying word 'marks', then the finding of the learned Single Judge could possibly have been accepted. Scrutiny of marks only means that the marks of the candidate shall be minutely examined by the authorities. Had the word 'scrutiny of the answer books' been mentioned without qualifying word 'marks', then the finding of the learned Single Judge could possibly have been accepted. Therefore, what is to be scrutinised is the marks shown in the answer given by the candidate. The view taken by the learned Single Judge on the face of it does not appeal to us." 14. The Division Bench, in para 10 of the judgment further observed: "10. It is no doubt true that every student deserves to be dealt with fairly and honestly but nonetheless the provisions which are appearing in the Regulations and the Rules cannot be interpreted to mean which is not capable of interpretation. A provision should be interpreted in the manner which may advance be the cause of justice and fair play. At the same time, the provision should be given natural meaning without any violence to the language employed by the statute. The statute should be given ordinary and natural meaning keeping in view the principles of fair play and justice but that does not mean that total violence should be done to the language. For the sake of repetition we again state here that the scrutiny of marks means that marks alone have to be scrutinised or minutely examined. That does not mean that the whole answer-book has to be revalued or the entire revaluation of the answer-sheet should be done. This expression is incapable of interpretation as put by the learned Judge.'' 15. The matter needs to be examined from yet another angle. Lacs of students appear every year in Final Examinations conducted by the respondent Board, for Class X and XII. In addition, thousands of student appear every year in the supplementary examinations for these classes. In the above background, any direction for 'Revaluation of answer papers' of the students seeking such 'Revaluation', the number whereof would certainly be in thousands and thousands, if not in Lacs, will not only create prectical difficulties for the Board, but also is bound to throw the entire system out of gear. 16. The Apex Court, while examining the matter, further observed in para 27 of the judgment: "27. .... 16. The Apex Court, while examining the matter, further observed in para 27 of the judgment: "27. .... Further, it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process." 17. The Apex Court while sounding a note of caution in interference in academic matters, such as the present one, observed in para 29 : "29. Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grassroot problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court, while deciding the instant case." 18. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any scope for interference in the matter. 19. The Letters Patent Appeal, therefore, fails and is hereby dismissed.