ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard Mr. M.S. Anwar, learned senior counsel for the petitioner and Mr, Kalyan Roy, learned counsel for the Jharkhand Secondary Examination Board, Ranchi. 2. Petitioner has prayed for quashing the merit list published by respondent/Board regarding the Matriculation Examination of 2001 held in March, 2001 and to declare the petitioner as topper securing first position with 607 marks in matriculation examination and further for grant of compensation to the petitioner for mental pain and agony. 3. Petitioners case is that he is a good and bright student and appeared in annual matriculation examination held in March 2001 with Roll Code 03101 and Roll No. 0576. It is stated by the petitioner that after the result was declared, mark-sheet was Issued to the petitioner showing that he obtained 607 marks and stood top securing highest marks. Surprisingly in the new item published on 8th November, 2001- in Prabhat Khabar petitioners name was shown at serial No. 4 showing 598 marks and securing IIIrd position. Petitioner immediately contacted Board Office and obtained list of marks obtained by the first fourteen candidates wherein marks of the petitioner has been shown as 598. It is alleged by the petitioner that the Board has altered the marks without giving any notice to the petitioner and therefore he has been deprived of getting gold medal on 15.1.2001 by the Chief Minister of the State of Jharkhand. 4. The respondent/Board filed counter affidavit wherein it is stated that Rules and Regulations of the Examination Board empowers the Board to announce result and make such declaration with regard to the result and to, correct the error, malpractice and mistakes. It is the practice of the Board to scrutinize the answer papers of the top 10 students in the merit list. For that purpose three men committee was constituted and the answer papers of the toppers including the petitioner was examined. The Committee submitted report with regard to answer book of the petitioner on 18.2.2001. According to the report five excess marks was given to the petitioner in Physics and excess marks was also given in Sanskrit paper. Copy of the report has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. The Committee submitted report with regard to answer book of the petitioner on 18.2.2001. According to the report five excess marks was given to the petitioner in Physics and excess marks was also given in Sanskrit paper. Copy of the report has been annexed as Annexure-A to the counter affidavit. It is stated by the Board that at the time of issuance of marks, petitioner was shown to have secured 607 marks out of the 700 marks but after scrutinizing answer paper of the petitioner it was found that 5 (five) extra marks was given in Physics and 4 marks was given in Sanskrit. Accordingly after reducing 9 marks he was placed in IIIrd position in the merit list. 5. For better appreciation of the case of the Board, it would be worth to quote para 13 and 14 of the counter affidavit, which is evident from the report (Annexure-A): "Para 13 That according to the report it appears that the 5 excess marks was given to the petitioner in Physics subject. In the question No. 8 initially 1 + 1 = 2 was given but subsequently the said marks after cutting to made 2 + 2 = 4 : Similarly in the question No. 11 the initial marks 1 + 2 = 3 was made after cutting 2 + 2 = 4. In other question No. 12 and 13 also the same method applied and the marks initially given was enhanced to the extend of 3 marks. Para 14 That similarly in Sanskrit paper in question No. 22, 23, 24 excess of marks as given after cutting the actual marks." 6. A bench of this Court while hearing the writ petition on 3.7.2003 passed the following order : "Heard both the parties. In order to clarify the marks it ap pears necessary that following facts be ascertained : (i) Whether any overwriting or interpolation is there in the answer sheet of other ten topper candidates also other than this petitioner? (ii) Whether the cuttings/over writings against the marks against particular answers do correspond/tally with the marks against that question on the cover of answer book? (iii) Whether marks of the petitioner in Physics and Sanskrit are inflated? List this case on 20.7.2003. (ii) Whether the cuttings/over writings against the marks against particular answers do correspond/tally with the marks against that question on the cover of answer book? (iii) Whether marks of the petitioner in Physics and Sanskrit are inflated? List this case on 20.7.2003. In the meantime, the ascertainment (supra) will be made in the Chamber of Registrar General in his presence through the help of competent teacher in the subject." 7. In compliance of the aforesaid order two competent teachers in Physics and Sanskrit of the D.A.V. Jawahar Vidya Mandir, Ranchi were deputed and they re- examined the answer sheets of three toppers including the petitioner. In the report it is mentioned that some interpolation and over writing was found in the answer sheets which resulted in increase in aggregate of the marks obtained by the petitioner. 8. Taking into consideration the report submitted by two experts of the D.A.V. School on the re-examination of the anpwer sheets and also regard being had to the fact that in the answer sheets of the petitioner there appears to be over writing in the marks given by the examiner and also in the cover page of the answer sheets, I am of the opinion that no further inquiry is needed and it cannot be held that the petitioner secured highest marks in the examination. Normally decision taken by the educational authority in academic matters Court should be very slow in interfering with the same. It can not be held that the Board has acted in contravention of the Rules and regulations rather undisputedly the Board is empowered to make scrutiny of the ten topper candidates for the purpose of ascertaining correct marks obtained by them. 9. In the case of "Bhushan Uttam Khare v. Dean, B.J. Medical College and Ors." (1992) 2 SCC 220 , their Lordships observed : "We have considered all the materials placed before us in the light of argument advanced keeping in mind the well accepted principle that in deciding the matters relating to orders passed by authorities of educational institutions, the Court should normally be very slow to pass orders in its jurisdiction because matters falling within the jurisdiction of educational authorities should normally be left to their decision and the Court should interfere with them only when it thinks it must do so in the interest of justice. We are satisfied that there had been sufficient material before the Executive Council to proceed in the manner in which it has done. It is not correct to say that the University had accepted on non-existent rule for ordering revaluation. Ordinance 146 is comprehensive enough to include revaluation also for further action. The fact that two examiners were also the members of the Committee which recommended for revaluation cannot result in any bias even if they had been directly concerned with the original evaluation. It is true that in the second revaluation also there had been some changes between the original valuation and the revaluation results. However, it is not so glaring or demonstrably unconscionable as seen in the first revaluation. We cannot, therefore, accept the contention of the petitioner that the High Court had erred in not granting the relief sought for. We can only observe that the case of the petitioner, who alone has come before this Court and who had secured higher marks in the first revaluation and is, therefore, aggrieved by the cancellation of the same, would be duly considered in the selection for post- graduate course. The special leave petition is dismissed." 10. For the reasons aforesaid, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in this writ application, which is accordingly dismissed. 11. However, before parting with the order, I must express my view with regard to conduct of the Jharkhand School Examination Board. 12. When the case was first time listed on 13.11.2001, the Board was directed to produce answer sheets of at least three meritorious candidates against whom decision was taken for distribution of ranks. The Board failed to produce answer sheets on the next date i.e. 28.3.2003. This Court again adjourned this case on 30.4.2003. On 30.4.2003, the Board produced only one answer sheets of the petitioner but failed to produce answer sheet of other candidates on the plea that those answer sheets were mis-placed. This Court therefore passed order directing the Additional Secretary of the Board to appear in person on the next date. On 12.6.2003, Mr. Bimal, Additional Secretary of the Board appeared in person and submitted that he was transferred long back from the Board and all the answer sheets were not in his custody. This con duct of the Board is highly deprecated by the Court. On 12.6.2003, Mr. Bimal, Additional Secretary of the Board appeared in person and submitted that he was transferred long back from the Board and all the answer sheets were not in his custody. This con duct of the Board is highly deprecated by the Court. It is therefore observed that the Examination Board of the Jharkhand State must act fairly particularly in the matter of conducting examination and publication of result. I express serious displeasure over the conduct of the Jharkhand Secondary Examination Board, Ranchi and it is expected that in future same thing must not be repeated.