JUDGMENT B.K. Sharma, J. 1. Heard Mr. B.S. Basumatary, learned Counsel for the Petitioner as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Counsel for the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEB A). 2. The Petitioner who has passed HSLC Examination-2007 securing 467 marks out of total 600, has invoked the writ jurisdiction of this Court for a direction to the respondents to reevaluate her answer scripts in the subjects of Sanskrit and English. Be it stated here that the Petitioner is represented by her father. The Petitioner made a prayer before the authority for re-examination of her answer scripts. Upon rechecking the answer scripts, it was found that there was mistake in totaling of marks and accordingly same was corrected. She was awarded 11 (eleven) more marks in English and 1 (one) more mark in Sanskrit. However, the Petitioner being not satisfied with such re-examination of her answer scripts, has approached this Court for a direction to the respondents to re-evaluate her answer scripts. 3. Mr. Basumatary, learned Counsel for the Petitioner upon a reference to the copies of the answer scripts and the question papers, has submitted that in spite of giving correct answers, the examiners did not give full marks. Upon a particular reference to certain answers, he has submitted that although as per the procedure of evaluation of the answer scripts, the Petitioner was entitled to get 5 (five) marks, she was given only 4 (four) marks. Some other questions and answers have also been referred to by the learned Counsel for the Petitioners so as to contend that the Petitioner was given lesser marks. 4. The respondents have filed their counter affidavit denying the contentions raised by the Petitioner. According to them, the answer scripts have been correctly evaluated and upon scrutiny when it was found that there was mistake in totaling of marks, same has been corrected in accordance with rules. 5. Mr. Chutia, learned Counsel appearing for the SEB A has also produced the reports of re-examination pertaining to both the papers as per which there was nothing wrong in evaluation of the answer scripts of the Petitioner. He has also referred to the relevant rules which do not provide for any reexamination of answer scripts. He has also placed reliance on the following decisions: 1) (1984) 4 SCC 27 Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. He has also referred to the relevant rules which do not provide for any reexamination of answer scripts. He has also placed reliance on the following decisions: 1) (1984) 4 SCC 27 Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and Ors. 2) (2004) 6 SCC 714 Promod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and Ors. 3) (2004) 13 SCC 383 Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and Anr. 4) (1998) 3 SCC 5 Central Board of Secondary Education v. Nikhil Gulati and Anr. 5) (2000) 3 SCC 59 Chairman, J and K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Ors. 6) 2005 (4) GLT 642 Ajit Borah v. State of Assam and Ors. 6. The decisions referred to by Mr. Chutia are on the ambit, scope and jurisdiction of the writ court in issuing direction for reexamination of the answer scripts of a candidate. Needless to say that in such a sensitive matter the Court will have to adopt cautious approach. This Court does not have expertise to express any opinion regarding assessment made by the examiners who are the experts in their respective subjects. There may be variation in awarding marks from examiner to examiner. No full proof methodology can be applied in the matter of examination of papers. In such a situation, the writ court exercising its power of judicial review under Article 226 of the Constitution of India cannot issue any mandamus for reexamination of the answer scripts on the basis of the expectation of the Petitioner. 7. It is not a case of any irregularity or anomaly agitated in writ petition. What has been agitated is that as per the expectation of the Petitioner she was to secure more marks. Examples have been furnished in reference to certain questions and answers. According to the Petitioner as against her expectation of getting 5 (five) marks, she was given only 4 (four) marks. In some other answers, she expected ½ marks. If such stand of the Petitioner is to be scrutinized, their will be no end to such litigation. 8. In the case of Pravas Ranjan Panda (supra), the Apex Court noticing that there was no provision for reevaluation of the answer scripts of the students which is also the position in the instant case, observed as follows: 6. If such stand of the Petitioner is to be scrutinized, their will be no end to such litigation. 8. In the case of Pravas Ranjan Panda (supra), the Apex Court noticing that there was no provision for reevaluation of the answer scripts of the students which is also the position in the instant case, observed as follows: 6. The High Court though observed that the writ Petitioner who has taken the examination is hardly a competent person to assess his own merit and on that basis claim for re-evaluation of papers, but issued the aforesaid direction in order to eliminate the possibility of injustice on account of marginal variation in marks. It is an admitted position that the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa do not make any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books of the students. The question whether in absence of any provision to that effect an examinee is entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-books has been examined by us in Promod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission decided on 06.08.2004. It has been held therein that in absence of rules providing for re-evaluation of answer-books, no such direction can be issued. It has been further held that in absence of clear rules on the subject, a direction for re-evaluation of the answer-books may throw many problems an in the large public interest such a direction must be avoided. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court directing for re-evaluation of the answer-books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks is clearly unsustainable in law and must be set aside. 9. In the case of Promod Kumar Srivastava (supra), the Apex Court noticing that there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer-book, observed as follows: 8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re evaluation which is bound to take time. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward was a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the large interest, they must be avoided. 10. Mere expectation to obtain better marks and the assessment of a candidate of his/her own answers upon reference to the question papers cannot form the basis of exercising the writ jurisdiction for a direction to the authority to re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the candidate. 11. It is a common knowledge of all that marks may very from examiner to examiner. The examination in question is not through computerized system. The answer scripts are also not evaluated through computer. In such a situation, if the marks awarded did not conform to the expectation of the candidate, same cannot lead to issuance of a direction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India substituting the view of the examiners who are the experts in their respective subjects. 12. The respondents have in fact verified the answer scripts in question by a team of experts and have furnished their reports which are reproduced below: Subject Sanskrit Roll B 07-418 No. 0435 REPORT As per norms laid down by the Board of Secondary Education Assam, in connection with re-examination, Re-examiner can correct the wrong total of the marks of an answer script, if there is any. In addition to this he can evaluate the unexamined answer of questions. He has no power to increase or deduct marks all ready awarded against the questions by the examiner. The marks given by the examiner of the answer script bearing Roll No. B 07-418 No. 0435 of the subject Sanskrit is found correct. In addition to this he can evaluate the unexamined answer of questions. He has no power to increase or deduct marks all ready awarded against the questions by the examiner. The marks given by the examiner of the answer script bearing Roll No. B 07-418 No. 0435 of the subject Sanskrit is found correct. In the case of question No. 5 (d), the examiner did not give any mark, because the verb of the sentence is not found correct. In the case of question No. 1, the answer is not fully satisfactory. So the examiner is quite right in awarding 4 marks against the question. Subject English Roll B 07-418 No. 0435 REPORT As per rules laid down by the Board of Secondary Education, Assam in connection with the re-examination, a Re-examiner is empowered to correct the wrong total of the marks of an answer script if there is any. In addition to this he can evaluate the unexamined answers of questions. He has no power to increase or deduct marks already awarded against the question by the examiner. At the time of re-examination of the answer script bearing Roll B 07-418 No. 0435 it was found that examiner's total shown on the cover page was wrong. The wrong total was corrected by the Re-examiner. Regarding evaluation the examiner was quite right and proper justice was given to the candidate. 13. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. The writ court cannot yield to the expectation of the Petitioner as per her own assessment of her answers. So as to issue any mandamus by way of a direction to re-examine the answer scripts in question. 14. The writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed