Judgement [Per: Hon'ble Cyriac Joseph, C.l. (Oral» 1. The appellant appeared in Class XII Examination conducted by the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) in the year 2002. He secured high marks in all the subjects except Physics. Hence, he applied for verification of the marks in Physics. On verification, the CBSE could not detect any mistake in the awarding of marks. This information was conveyed to the appellant through a letter dated 11-06-2002 of the CBSE (Annexure 5 to the writ petition). Thereupon, the appellant filed Writ Petition No. 331 of 2002 (MIS) praying for a direction to the respondents to produce the answer book of the petitioner before the Court and to pass necessary orders for the revaluation of the answer book of the petitioner. The respondents were directed by the Court to produce the answer book of the petitioner and Sri Mahavir Singh Tyagi, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to peruse the answer book and the model answers. Mr. Tyagi perused the answer book and the model answers and thereafter, he was heard by the Court on 26-09-2002. But in the order dated 26-09-2002, there Is no indication as to the result of the verification conducted by Mr. Tyagi. Thereafter, another order was passed by the Court on 26-11-2004 directing to put up the matter before the Additional Registrar who was directed to verify the answer book in the presence of the counsel for the parties and the Additional Registrar was directed to submit the report by 29-10-2004. However, no such verification took place and no report was submitted by the Additional Registrar. Thereafter, the writ petition came up for final hearing before the learned Single Judge on 0208-2005. After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and considering the materials placed on record, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that the writ petition Is devoid of merit. 2. The learned Single Judge held that the learned counsel for the petitioner could not point out any provision under which revaluation of the answer book can be done. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner in the writ petition, has filed this Special Appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant at length and have considered the materials placed on record. We have also heard Mr. Aggrieved by the dismissal of the writ petition, the petitioner in the writ petition, has filed this Special Appeal. 3. We have heard Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant at length and have considered the materials placed on record. We have also heard Mr. Gopal Narain, learned counsel for the Central Board of Secondary Education. 4. Clause 61 of the Examination Bye-laws 1995 of the Central Board of Secondary Education provides as follows: "61. Verification of marks obtained by a candidate in a subject: i. A candidate who has appeared at an examination conducted by the Board may apply to the concerned Regional Officer of the Board for verification of marks in any particular subject. The verification will be restricted to checking whether all the answers have been evaluated and that there has been no mistake in the totalling of marks for each question in that subject and that the marks have been transferred correctly on the title page of the answer book and to the award list and whether the supplementary answer book's) attached with the answer book mentioned by the candidate are intact. No revaluation of the answer book or supplementary answer book's) shall be done. ii. Such an application must be made by the candidate within 21 days from the date of the declaration of results for Main Examination and 15 days for Compartment Examination. iii. All such applications must be accompanied by payment of fee as prescribed by the Board from time to time. iv. No candidate shall claim. or be entitled to. revaluation of his/her behalf, nor will the answers or disclosure or inspection of the answer book's) or other documents. v. A candidate shall not be entitled to refund of fee unless as a result of the verification his/her marks are changed. vi. In no case the verification of marks shall be done in the presence of the candidate or anyone else on his / her behalf nor will the answer books be shown to him/her or his/her representative. vii. Verification of marks obtained by a candidate will be done by the officials appointed by or with the approval of the Chairman. viii. The marks, on verification will be revised upward or downward, as per the actual marks obtained by the candidate in his / her answer book. ix. vii. Verification of marks obtained by a candidate will be done by the officials appointed by or with the approval of the Chairman. viii. The marks, on verification will be revised upward or downward, as per the actual marks obtained by the candidate in his / her answer book. ix. The communication regarding the revision of the marks, if any, shall be sent to the candidate within a reasonable period of time. x. The Board will not be responsible for any loss or damage or any inconvenience caused to the candidate, consequent on the revision of marks or delay in communication for reasons beyond control. xi. The Board shall revise the marks statement in respect of such candidates after the previous marks statement is returned by the candidate. xii. The decision of the Chairman on the result of the verification of marks shall be final." 5. In view of the clear provision in Clause 61 (i) of the Bye-laws that no revaluation of the answer book or supplementary answer book shall be done, the finding of the learned Single Judge that there is no provision for revaluation of the answer book is correct. Learned counsel for the appellant could not point out any provision which confers a right on the student to ask for revaluation of the answer book or casts an obligation on the CBSE to revalue the answer book on the application of the student. There was also no challenge in the writ petition against Clause 61 of the Examination Bye-laws. In such circumstances, we do not find any illegality in the judgment impugned in this Special Appeal. 6. Mr. T.A. Khan, learned counsel for the appellant contended that even though the Examination Bye-laws do not provide for revaluation of the answer books, in appropriate cases, this Court can, in exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, direct revaluation of the answer book in order to ensure that the answer book is properly valued and the career of a student is not spoiled. It is true that if the circumstances of the case persuade the Court to suspect the correctness of the valuation made and the Court is satisfied that, in the interest of justice, the answer book shall be got revalued, the High Court can direct revaluation of the answer book. But such a course cannot be adopted in every case. It is true that if the circumstances of the case persuade the Court to suspect the correctness of the valuation made and the Court is satisfied that, in the interest of justice, the answer book shall be got revalued, the High Court can direct revaluation of the answer book. But such a course cannot be adopted in every case. Such power should not be exercised by the High Court except in very extreme situations. Lakhs of students appear in the CBSE Examination. If every student seeks revaluation of the answer book, the examination system itself will break down resulting in total chaos and it will not be practically possible for the CBSE to conduct the examinations smoothly. Hence, the CBSE is fully justified in including a provision in the Bye-laws that no revaluation of the answer book or supplementary answer book shall be done. In this case, the Court had summoned the answer book of the appellant and the Amicus Curiae had perused It. There is nothing to indicate that the Amicus Curiae had noted any irregularity or that such- an irregularity was brought to the notice of the 'Court by the Amicus Curiae. If any such Irregularity was noted by the Amicus Curiae or by the Court, that would have reflected In the order passed on 26-092002. Unfortunately for the appellant, there is no such reflection in the- order dated 26-09-2002. 7. We cannot approve the procedure adopted by the learned Single Judge in directing to put up the matter before the Additional Registrar to verify the answer book in the presence of counsel-for the parties. Such a procedure was clearly against Clause 61(vi) of the Bye-laws. Therefore, we are not impressed by the contention that no such verification took place as directed by the learned Single Judge. Moreover, if the order dated 26-11-2004 of the learned Single Judge had not been complied with and If the petitioner was aggrieved by It, the matter could have brought to the notice of the Court and appropriate orders could have been passed by the Court at that stage. However, the appellant / petitioner did not take any further action in the light of the order dated 26-11-2004 of the learned Single Judge. The writ petition came up for final hearing only on 02-08-2005. 8. For the reasons stated above, the Special Appeal Is dismissed.