Judgment Navin Sinha, J. 1. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council. 2. The two petitioners herein who appeared at the annual Intermediate Examination, 2004 seek the relief of mandamus commanding the respondents to re-evaluate their answer books of all the papers since they reasonably believe that they have been awarded lesser marks than their expectations. Learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly stated that pleadings in the writ application with regard to the petitioners having approached the respondent council with their grievances was extremely vague. 3. There is no material before this Court to arrive at any conclusion that the petitioners did resort to their statutory remedies before the respondent council within the time stipulated prior to approaching this Court. 4. Learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent council submits that in accordance with Rule 13 sub rule 17(a) of the Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Establishment of Colleges and Conduct of Examination) Rules, 1994 an examinee who reasonably believes that his marks in a particular paper/papers are much lower than expected, he may apply for scrutiny of his answer script with requisite fee prescribed by the Council, within one month of the publication of the last instalment of the result. 5. In the present case it is not in dispute that the results were published on 1.6.2004 meaning thereby the petitioners should have applied for scrutiny of their answer sheets before 1.7.2004. Rule 13 Sub-rule 17(b) further provides the manner in which such application is to be considered and processed. It would therefore be necessary to set out the relevant extract of Rule 13 in extenso. Rule 13(17)(a) :- "An examinee who reasonably believes that his marks in a particular paper/papers are much lower than expected, he may apply for scrutiny of his answer script with requisite fee prescribed by the Council, within one month of the publication of the last instalment of the result". Rule 13(17)(b):-"The Council shall get such answer who shall see that all answer/part of answers are evaluated, marks from inside have been carried over to the face and the totalling is correct. Rule 13(17)(b):-"The Council shall get such answer who shall see that all answer/part of answers are evaluated, marks from inside have been carried over to the face and the totalling is correct. In cases of discrepancy they will report the matter to the Chairman for necessary correction." 6 Learned counsel for the petitioners very fairly states that the petitioners never made any application as provided for by the statute much less within the time stipulated. 7. This Court therefore finds that there is a statutory procedure regulating the mode, method and manner in which a candidate could ventilate his grievances. The petitioners have admittedly not done so. In view of the statutory provisions, there would be no occasion for this Court to consider any plea contrary to the same. Sympathy would have to be subservient to the law as held in 2004(8) SCC 262 (Para 21-24). 8. The writ application is dismissed.