JUDGMENT A.H. Saikia, J. 1. Heard Mr. S. Das, learned Counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing counsel, Board of Secondary Education, Assam (for short, 'SEBA') on behalf of official respondents. 2. The case of the petitioner in the instant writ petition is that his son appeared in last H.S.L.C. Examination, 2005 under Roll- BO5 -217 and No. 0081 and after announcement of the result, his son secured 84% aggregate marks as per the mark-sheet in the said examination. That shocked the petitioner, as his son expected to obtain more than 97% in Advance Mathematics, 93% in Social Studies, 88% in General Mathematics and 90% in General Science. Since the marks obtained by him in those subjects were much less than his expectation, his son submitted an application before the Respondent No. 2, SEBA on 7.6.2005 for re-examination of his answer scripts of General Science, Social Studies and Advance Mathematics by depositing the requisite fees as per Board's Rules. After re-examination, the competent authority issued a Notification dated 20.7.2005 (Annexure -5 to the writ petition) wherein at Serial No. 49 it was reflected that petitioner's son obtained 86 revised marks against subject of General Science with the result shown as 'I -STAR'. 3. Being aggrieved by result of such re-examination, petitioner has approached this Court seeking a writ of Mandamus directing the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 to produce the answer scripts of those above mentioned subjects for referring the same to a Commission comprised of experts for re-examination of those answer scripts. In paragraphs 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11 and 12 petitioner states as under: 5. That your humble petitioner begs to state that as per statement of his son, his son highly expected to be secured more than 88% aggregate marks as he made correct answers to the question papers in the HSLC Examination commenced on 25th February, 2005 as such his son too expected to be obtained more than 97% in Advance Mathematics, 93% in Social Studies, 88%, General Mathematics and 90% in General Science. 6. That your petitioner begs to state that after announcement of result of HSLC Examination by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, petitioner's son obtained the marksheet who secured 84% aggregate marks as such he became surprised as he could not obtain the mark as his expectation. 7. 6. That your petitioner begs to state that after announcement of result of HSLC Examination by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, petitioner's son obtained the marksheet who secured 84% aggregate marks as such he became surprised as he could not obtain the mark as his expectation. 7. That your petitioner begs to state that the son of the petitioner was not satisfied with the marks obtained in the subjects of Social Studies, General Science, General Mathematics, Advance Mathematics shown in the marksheet (Annexure-3) as much as the petitioner's son submitted an application before the respondent No. 2 on 7.6.2005 for re-examination of answer scripts of General Science, Social Studies, Advance Mathematics by depositing re-examination fees to the authority of respondent No. 2 as per Board's Rules. A copy of fees receipt of the re-examination of answer script is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-4. 8. That your humble petitioner begs to state that after re-examination of the answer scripts of the candidate of High School Leaving Certificate Examination, 2005, who applied for re-examination and changes of marks of the petitioner's son has been detected to be 86 marks in the subject (paper) of General Science who originally obtained 84 marks and accordingly the Respondent No.2 issued by notification dated 20th July; 2005 for re-examination result of High School Leaving Certificate Examination. A copy of re-examination result of HSLC Examination vide notification No. SEBA/EX/REG/RE-Exam/2005/07dated Guwahati the 20th July, 2005 is annexed herewith and marked as Annexure-5. 9. That the petitioner respectfully begs to state that the petitioner's son was not satisfied with the result of re-examination a such he did not accept the fresh mark sheet regarding revised marks. 10. That your petitioner begs to state that the son of the petitioner could not secure the expected marks due to some wrong entry of marks in the answer scripts by the examiner. 11. That your petitioner begs to state that due to below of expected marks of the petitioner's son, it has affected his higher education, which is amount to depriving his right to life and personal liberty as contained under Article21 of the Constitution of India embraced also right to education. 12. That your petitioner respectfully begs to state that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not exercise the norms prescribed by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, regarding re-examination of answer scripts of his son. 4. 12. That your petitioner respectfully begs to state that the respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not exercise the norms prescribed by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam, regarding re-examination of answer scripts of his son. 4. From perusal of the above averments, it appears that petitioner has not mentioned anywhere the marks so obtained by his son in those subjects, namely, Advance Mathematics, Social Studies, General Mathematics and in General Science. Only in paragraph-8, it is seen that in General Science his original mark -84 was revised to 86 after such re-examination. More so, no specific allegation has been made anywhere in those averments calling for a judicial review of the re-evaluation of the answer scripts save and except the petitioner's son highly expected to secure more than 88% aggregate mark and Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 did not exercise the norms prescribed by SEBA regarding re-examination of those answer scripts of his son. Despite asking, the learned Counsel has failed to place any relevant rules and/or notification outlining such norms which were allegedly not exercised by the authorities. High expectation to secure more than 88% aggregate marks is basically shown to be the reason seeking re-examination of the answer scripts. 5. On pointed query, Mr. Chutia, learned standing counsel for respondent No. 2 has stated that it is only the revised marks which is notified by a notification as has been done in the instant case vide Notification dated 20.7.2005 and if the original marks are found to be same after re-examination, those are not required to be notified. According to him, in the instant case, on receipt of an application for re-examination on those subjects, the papers were thoroughly re-examined and accordingly revised General Science marks was notified to be 86 in the Notification dated 20.7.2005. In other two papers, namely, Advance Mathematics and Social studies, the petitioner's marks are found to be correct as per initial evaluation for which those are not reflected in the said notification. He has also stated that after re-examination, on request of the petitioner, no anomalies were ever detected in other subjects and the assessment and evaluation of those papers on re-examination were found to be correct and proper. The petitioner is unnecessarily dragging the matter to the Court, though his son performed absolutely well in the examination as he secured First Division with 'STAR'. The petitioner is unnecessarily dragging the matter to the Court, though his son performed absolutely well in the examination as he secured First Division with 'STAR'. Moreso, there is no provision for further re-examination of the answer scripts after such re-examination. 6. On close scrutiny of the materials available on record including the marks so obtained by the petitioner's son and also upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, it is seen that petitioner's son passed the H.S.L.C Examination, 2005 with flying colours and got 1st Division with 'STAR' obtaining 84, 83 and 92 in General Science, Social Studies and Advance Mathematics respectively. On re-examination of papers, his marks in General Science was increased by 2 marks and accordingly revised as 86 marks. Since in other papers, on re-examination no anomalies were found, as stated by learned standing counsel for Respondent No. 2, the question of revising of those marks does not arise. 7. On overall consideration of facts and circumstances of the case and upon hearing learned Counsel for the parties, this Court is of the view that mere high expectation without any cogent reason would not confer any right to the petitioner to seek judicial review in the re-evaluation process of the answer scripts by invoking the writ jurisdiction of this Court. Sanctity and purity of the examination process including re-examination of the answer scripts shall not be lightly tinkered with. Normally, the courts do not examine any such grievances relating to examination which is under exclusive domain of the experts. But, if any gross irregularities and anomalies are found and detected, obviously there shall be no denial of judicial review. On facts, the case at hand does not depict any such gross anomalies or manifest irregularities in re-examination of the answer scripts, as sought by the petitioner's son and as such it is not a fit case warranting judicial intervention. 8. In view of the above, this Court does not find any merit in this case calling for interference of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 9. Consequently, this writ petition stands dismissed at the admission stage itself. No costs. Petition dismissed