Judgment :- Radhakrishnan, J. Can an examiner omit to give zero mark to a candidate on the ground that the answer to the question is not worthy of giving any marks is the question that has come up for consideration in this case. 2. Petitioner in this case appeared for second and fourth semester examination of MBA conducted by the University of Kerala during June-July 2005. He failed in one paper, each in the second and fourth semester examinations. Hence he has approached this court seeking a direction to the University as well as the Controller of Examinations to value the answers in the answer scripts of the petitioner to question No.15 of MBA (203) Research Methods for Management and question Nos.4 and 9 of MBA (402) Strategic Corporate Finance of the Second and Fourth Semester Examinations of MBA (FT) respectively by the same examiners (1st and 2nd examiners respectively) and add the marks noted in Exts.P3 and P4. Learned single Judge directed the University to produce the marks sheets in respect of the examinations of the above two semesters and noticed that first examiner has left the column relating to the answer to question No.15 blank. On the other hand, the 2nd examiner has awarded 7 marks to the petitioner for question No.15. Learned single Judge also noticed that in respect of fourth semester examination the second examiner left columns relating to the answers to question Nos.4 and 9 blank while the first examiner awarded 7 marks and 5 marks respectively for those answers to the petitioner. University was asked to explain as to why marks were not awarded to the above mentioned questions. Controller of Examinations forwarded the explanation given by the Professor and Head, Department of Business Administration with regard to the second semester MBA (FT) examination. The relevant portion of the explanation is extracted hereunder. “On verification of the answer script, on 20/06/06, maintained by the university, I am to state that the answer to the question concerned given by the candidate is not relevant and hence no marks is awarded.” In respect of 4th semester examination the concerned examiner has given the following explanation: “For Unit II Q.No.4, the candidate has not answered the question satisfactorily to illustrate a project relating to a 10 crore project. For Unit V.Q.No.9, the question is relating to any three technique of risk management. For Unit V.Q.No.9, the question is relating to any three technique of risk management. But the candidate failed to give the specific answer. Because of the above reasons, I give ‘0’ mark to the above question. Unfortunately I could not mark ‘0’ in the respective column.” 3. facts would indicate that so far as second semester examination is concerned, the first examiner has left the column relating to answer to question No.15 blank. On the other hand, the second examiner has awarded 7 marks to the petitioner to question No.15. In respect of 4th semester, the second examiner left columns relating to answers to question Nos.4 and 9 blank and on the other hand, the first examiner awarded 7 marks and 5 marks respectively for those answers to the petitioner. Evidently, when the first examiner left the column relating to answers so far as question No.15 blank the second examiner awarded 7 marks to that question. With regard to 4th semester the first examiner awarded 7 and 5 marks respectively to question Nos.4 and 9, but second examiner left the column blank so far as those questions are concerned. Facts would indicate that not even zero marks have been awarded to question No.15 by first examiner for the second semester examination and to question Nos.4 and 9 by second examiner of 4th semester examination. Stand of the respondents and valuer seems to be is that those questions deserve no marks. 4. We are of the view, if those questions deserve no marks the examiners could have given zero marks. Respondents proceed as if the question deserves no marks, then zero mark was not awarded. We are of the view, if the question deserves no marks then it is imperative on the part of the examiners to award zero mark. Zero has got a value, that is zero value. Zero is a “mark”. Zero is a cipher, the point from which the reckoning begins. Zero is both a number and numeral. Natural numbers following zero is one. Zero is having no measurable or otherwise, determinable value, but if a question deserves no mark, zero mark should be awarded. 5. We are of the view, examiners cannot avoid giving zero mark on the ground that those answers deserve no marks. If a question deserves no marks, necessarily the examiner has to award zero mark. Zero is having no measurable or otherwise, determinable value, but if a question deserves no mark, zero mark should be awarded. 5. We are of the view, examiners cannot avoid giving zero mark on the ground that those answers deserve no marks. If a question deserves no marks, necessarily the examiner has to award zero mark. If zero mark has not been awarded to an answer the presumption is that the examiner has not applied his mind to decide as to whether the answer deserves any marks. When an answer deserves one mark, the examiner will have to give one mark and if the answer deserves no marks, then the examiner is bound to give zero mark. That has not been done in this case. 6. Learned single Judge felt there is no necessity of directing the examiners to again revalue the questions since examination conducted was June – July 2005. Learned single Judge adopted a course by which instead of referring the matter again to the valuers a direction be given to the University to award the same marks in respect of the answers in dispute, which the examiners who valued those answers have given. In the facts and circumstances of the case we find no error in the course adopted by the learned single Judge. Under such circumstance appeal lacks merit and the same is dismissed.