Judgment 1. Petitioner in the present writ application is the father of the examinee who had appeared in the examination conducted by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council in the month of March. 2005 with Roll Code No. 1301, Roll No. 10336, Enlistment No. R-0109-02. The relief which has been sought for by the petitioner is for commanding the respondents Intermediate Education Council and its officers for scrutiny/re-evaluation of answer sheets of all subjects of the son of the petitioner as provided under Rule 17(a) and 17(b) of Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Establishment and Examination) Rules, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules). 2. The son of the petitioner namely Neeraj Kumar Giri had appeared in the Intermediate Science Examination conducted by the Bihar Intermediate Education Council, Patna in the year 2004 from H.D. Jain College, Ara (Bhojpur) with Roll Code No. 1301, Roll No. 10336, Enlistment No. R-0109-02. This exaimination was conducted in the month of February, 2004 and after publication of the result the petitioners son was declared pass in Second Division securing 470 total marks in all subjects. Since the examinee was not satisfied with his marks, as provided under Bihar Intermediate Education Council Act, he again appeared in the Intermediate Science Examination conducted in the month of March, 2005 from H.D. Jain College, Ara with Roll Code 1301, Roll No. 40032, Enlistment No. R-0109-02. He was declared pass in second division with 480 total marks obtained by him in all subjects. The marks which were obtained by the petitioners son in the examination conducted in the year 2004 and the marks obtained by him in the examination conducted in the year 2005 were identical in all subjects except Hindi. In 2004 examination the petitioners son had obtained 100 marks in English, 116 marks in Physics, 106 marks in Chemistry and 97 marks in Mathematics. In 2005 examination also in English, Physics and Chemistry same marks were secured by him except Hindi in which he got 5 more marks. Petitioners son approached the respondents for re-evaluation of the answer sheets as he was not satisfied with the marks obtained by him. The respondents informed him that there is no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets and at best he can submit his application with requisite fee for scrutiny of the answer sheets. Petitioners son approached the respondents for re-evaluation of the answer sheets as he was not satisfied with the marks obtained by him. The respondents informed him that there is no provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets and at best he can submit his application with requisite fee for scrutiny of the answer sheets. He was further informed that under the process of scrutiny only the totalling of the marks is verified and nothing more is done. In the writ application it has been admitted by the petitioner that the petitioners son did not present his application for scrutiny. 3. Petitioner has challenged the procedure adopted by the respondents Bihar Intermediate Education Council under Rule 13(17)(a) and (b) of Bihar Intermediate Education Council (Establishment-and Examination) Rules, 1994. It has been submitted by the petitioners council that the procedure adopted by the respondent council is contrary to the provision under Rule 13(17)(a) and (b) of the Rules. Rule 13(17)(a) and (b) connotes that under the provision of Rule the Council is obliged to observe all process of re-evaiuation of the answer sheets by an expert and a mere scrutiny or re-totalling will not satisfy the requirements of Rule 17(b). When an examinee submits his application under Rule 13(17)(a) of the Rules, specially when the examinee has reason to believe that his answer books have not been properly evaluated. Due to wrong interpretation of Rule 17(a) and (b) of the Rules, only re-totalling or scrutiny is done by the Intermediate Council ignoring this aspect that, it is going to affect whole future of an examinee. Rule 17(b) of Rule 13 contemplates that if an application for scrutiny with requisite fee has been submitted, the scrutiny shall be done by the subject experts who has to see that all answers/ part of answers are evaluated. Meaning, thereby that process of scrutiny is not restricted to re-totalling only. The process of scrutiny to be done by a subject experts, which includes re-evaluation, if any answer or part of answer has not been evaluated. Since the respondents are only doing re-totalling during the process of scrutiny, it is against the provisions of the Rule. The respondents have to re-evaluate the answer sheets in terms of Rule 17(b) of Rule 13. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3 (Bihar intermediate Education Council and others). Since the respondents are only doing re-totalling during the process of scrutiny, it is against the provisions of the Rule. The respondents have to re-evaluate the answer sheets in terms of Rule 17(b) of Rule 13. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed by respondents 1 to 3 (Bihar intermediate Education Council and others). In the counter affidavit it has been stated that the council has already made advertisement in the newspaper vide communique no. 29/ 2005 dated 9.6.2005 indicating therein that the examinees interested to get their answer books scrutinized, should apply within 10.6.2005 to 15.7.2005 with the requisite fee so that their answer books may be scrutinized. Several examinees have applied for scrutiny in response to the advertisement and the council already has taken steps for scrutinizing the answer books of those examinees. The petitioners son did not apply in pursuance of the advertisement for scrutiny of answer books, hence there was no reason to do the scrutiny of the marks obtained by petitioners son. 5. Mr. Shashi Anugrah Narain, learned counsel appearing for Bihar Intermediate Education Council has submitted that as per Regulation, for improvement of performance/marks in Intermediate Examination an examinee has to appear in one or more or all subjects. In case the examinee secures lesser marks than the marks obtained by him earlier in any paper/subject than the higher marks obtained earlier in any paper/subject will be considered for the publication of result. Petitioners son had appeared in 2004 Intermediate Science Examination and was declared pass in second division. In order to improve his marks he again appeared in the 2005 Intermediate Science Examination. The marks obtained by him in 2005 examination was lesser as such his result has been published with the marks of previous examination which was higher as provided under Regulation. So far the grievance of the petitioner regarding scrutiny of the answer books is concerned, it is done by the Council in terms of Rule 13(17)(a) and (b) of the Rules. Rule 13(17)(a), (b) of the Rules reads as follows: "(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)(a), (b) of the Rules reads as follows: "(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. (b) The Council shall get such answer scripts scrutinized by subject experts who shall see that all answers/ 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. There is no ambiguity in the language of the Rule. Rule clearly indicates that only in case, it is found that any answer has not been evaluated, that will be evaluated. So far re-evaluation of already evaluated answers is concerned there is no such provision under the rule. Only scrutiny and re-totalling has been mentioned under Rule 13(17)(b) of the Rules. In cases of any discrepancy in the totalling in the answer sheets there is provision for scrutiny. There is no scope or provision for re-evaluation of the answer sheets. Further it has been submitted by the counsel appearing for the Bihar Intermediate Education Council that the petitioner has no case as his son has not applied for scrutiny. He could have raised any objection only when application for scrutiny would have been presented by the son of the petitioner. 7. Considering the pleadings of the parties and their submissions, this Court is of the view that the grievance which has been raised by the petitioner has no legs to stand. Firstly petitioners son has net submitted any application for scrutiny as provided under Rule 13(17)(a) of the Rules as such this writ application itself is not maintainable. The petitioner has not filed any Public Interest Litigation (PIL), but the writ application has been filed for individual relief. In this circumstance unless an application would have been filed by the petitioners son. Petitioner has no case and this writ application is not maintainable. 8. So far the arguments advanced by the petitioners counsel that the procedure adopted by the Council with regard to the provision under Rule 13(17)(a), (b) is wrong and the interpretation given by the Council is also wrong, do not inspire confidence. Petitioner has no case and this writ application is not maintainable. 8. So far the arguments advanced by the petitioners counsel that the procedure adopted by the Council with regard to the provision under Rule 13(17)(a), (b) is wrong and the interpretation given by the Council is also wrong, do not inspire confidence. The language of Rule 13(17)(a), (b) of the Rules is very clear. There is no ambiguity in the rule and no where in the rule the word re-evaluation has been used. The word which have been used under Rule 13(17)(a), (b) are scrutiny/evaluation and totalling. Rule 17(b) clearly indicates that answer scripts will be scrutinized by the subject experts who shall see that all answers/part of the answers are evaluated. Marks inside have been carried over to the face of the answer book and totalling is correct. It means that if by mistake any question answered by the candidate has been left unevaluated or, no marks has been given for any question in that case it will be evaluated by the subject expert. In all other cases it will be scrutinized that whether the marks which has been given inside the answer sheets to the question attempted by the candidate have duly been carried over on the face of the answer books and the totalling is correct. The provisions under Rule 13(17)(a), (b) do not indicate that the answer which have already been evaluated will be re-evaluated. The Apex Court has also held in several decisions that when under the rules there is no provision of revaluation the candidates cannot ask for revaluation of their answer sheets. I do not find that any procedural mistake is there so far Rule 13(17)(a), (b) are concerned. The petitioner has no case in this regard. This application is accordingly dismissed.