JUDGMENT Cyriac Joseph C.J. (Oral), 1. The appellant filed the writ petition praying for a direction to the respondent-University to refer the answer scripts of the petitioner bearing Register No. 00 M 3847 in Paper-I and Paper-2 of the subjects Surgery and Obstetrics and Gynecology of Phase-III, Part-II, M.B.B.S. (R.S.) February 2007 examination to a third examiner for valuation and to declare the result afresh. In support of the prayer, the petitioner, contended that the notifications dated 31.08.1999 and 25.01.2000 published by the respondent-University provided that all answer scripts wherein the difference in marks awarded by the first and the second valuers was 20 per cent or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, shall be referred to a third valuer appointed by the Vice-Chancellor and the result would be declared by taking the average marks of any two valuers close to each other, as the final marks. However, there was no averment in the writ petition that the petitioner had applied for such reference to a third valuer and no material was produced to show that such an application was submitted to the University. But, the petitioner had submitted Annexure-C application dated 12.04.2007 applying for verification/re-totalling of answer scripts. Verification/re-totalling of answer scripts is provided under Annexure-E notification. It is different from the reference to a third valuer, when the difference in the marks awarded by the first and the second valuers is 20 per cent or more of the maximum marks for the paper. Since the petitioner had not even applied for reference to a third valuer, the prayer in the writ petition was liable to be rejected. 2. However, the learned counsel for the petitioner appears to have asserted before the learned Single Judge that in the case of the petitioner, there was a difference of more than 20 per cent of the maximum marks between the marks awarded by the first and the second valuers. In the absence of any material or legal evidence to substantiate the claim, the learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition observing that it is too far fetched for the petitioner to seek the relief sought in the writ petition. At the same time, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner’s application for re-totalling/verification which was admittedly pending could be pursued by the petitioner. 3. At the same time, the learned Single Judge observed that the petitioner’s application for re-totalling/verification which was admittedly pending could be pursued by the petitioner. 3. Aggrieved by the order of the learned Single Judge, this writ appeal has been filed. 4. Having heard learned counsel for the appellant and having considered the materials placed on record, we are of the view that the writ petitioner was not entitled to the relief sought in the writ petition. Firstly, there was no legal or factual basis for the assertion that there was a difference of more than 20 per cent of the maximum marks between the marks awarded by the first and the second valuers. Secondly, the petitioner had not even submitted any application to the University for reference to third valuer. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was right and justified in dismissing the writ petition. 5. Sri Ramesh, learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that Annexure-C application of the appellant is under consideration of the University. Learned counsel also submitted that a reply to Annexure-C application will be given to the appellant within one week from to-day. This submission is recorded. 6. Learned counsel for the University submitted that in all cases where it is found that the difference in the award of marks by the first and the second valuer is 20 per cent or more of the maximum marks prescribed for a paper, they are automatically referred to a third examiner appointed by the Vice-Chancellor chosen from the approved panel without any application from the student concerned. It is also pointed out that the whole system has been computerised and therefore, the students need not have any apprehension in this regard. Obviously, if the difference in the marks awarded by the first and the second valuers in the case of the appellant is found in the verification/re-totalling to be 20 per cent or more of the maximum marks prescribed for the paper, his answer paper also will be referred to a third valuer appointed by the Vice-Chancellor. Hence the appellant cannot have any legitimate grievance in this case. 7. The writ appeal is disposed of in the above terms.