JUDGMENT Hon’ble Arun Tandon, J.—Petitioner had appeared in LL.M. 2nd Year Examination of the Year 2003 conducted by the respondent University. The answer sheets of all such students including the petitioner, who had appeared in the Environmental Law paper of the said examination was examined by one Dr. P.C. Vishwakarma. The Vice Chancellor of the University, for the reason that exceptionally higher marks have been awarded to the students, decided to get the answer sheets of all the students in respect of said paper of Environmental Law re-checked by another examiner. 2. Certain students, who had received more than pass marks in the said paper on the basis of the marks awarded by Dr. P.C. Vishwakarma, filed writ petition before the Court, being Writ Petition No. 60371 of 2005, with the contention that the Vice-Chancellor has no jurisdiction to direct re-evaluation of the answer sheets once the same has been examined by a duly appointed examiner. 3. The contention so raised was repelled and the Court held that Vice-Chancellor has ample jurisdiction to direct re-evaluation of the answer sheets, if he is satisfied that the marks awarded by the examiner concerned are not based on the fair assessment of the answers given by the student concerned. The Court therefore rejected the contention so raised and held that there is nothing illegal in re-evaluation of the answer sheets as directed by the Vice-Chancellor. 4. The other objection raised by the Counsel for the petitioners before the Hon’ble Single Judge in the earlier writ petition was that the person, who has re-examined the answer sheets for the second time, was not approved as an examiner by the Examination Committee and therefore such a person could not under law re-evaluated the answer sheets of the petitioners. The Court did not decide the said issue finally. However, it was recorded that in case the second examiner has not been approved by the Examination Committee, the matter may be placed before the Examination Committee for taking final decision in the matter. The Court in its operative portion of the judgment provided that so far as the petitioners of the writ petition are concerned, the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor be treated as provisional in nature subject to the order which may be passed by the Examination Committee. 5. The records were accordingly placed before the Examination Committee in compliance to the judgment of this Court. 5. The records were accordingly placed before the Examination Committee in compliance to the judgment of this Court. The Examination Committee found that examiner, who had re-evaluated the answer sheets for 2nd time, was not approved as an examiner by the Examination Committee and therefore he could not lawfully evaluate the answer sheets of students of LL.M, as has been done. Accordingly the University took a decision to get fresh evaluation of the answer sheets of all the students by an examiner duly approved by the Examination Committee. A third examiner was appointed, who evaluated the answer sheets of all the students of LL.M. 2nd year in the concerned subject and awarded marks. This third evaluation of the answer sheets by an examiner approved by the Examination Committee is being objected to by the petitioner only on the ground that present petitioner was not a party in the Writ Petition No. 60371 of 2005 wherein orders were passed resulting in re-evaluation of the answer sheets for the third time and therefore the judgment of the Court will not be binding upon the petitioner nor the right of the petitioner can be adversely effected because of 3rd evaluation. 6. It is settled that judgment of a Court shall not bind a person who is not a party before the Court unless specifically directed. However, the Court is also conscious of the fact that the answer sheets of a student in respect of an University examination must be evaluated by a duly appointed examiner. The power in that regard vest with the Examination Committee. In such circumstances, the Examination Committee, having regard to the fact that the second examiner who had not been approved by the Examination Committee as an examiner for the University examinations, rightly held that he could not lawfully evaluate the answer sheets. The University has not committed any mistake in directing evaluation of the answer sheets of all the students of LL.M. Final Year by an approved examiner duly appointed by the Examination Committee. 7. In the opinion of the Court such orders of the Examination Committee of the University are only for the purposes of ensuring that free and fair examinations take place and answer sheets are evaluated in accordance with the procedure prescribed. 7. In the opinion of the Court such orders of the Examination Committee of the University are only for the purposes of ensuring that free and fair examinations take place and answer sheets are evaluated in accordance with the procedure prescribed. Such orders of the University cannot be up set in the proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, as such orders result in substantial justice being done between the parties. 8. All Courts of law are established for furtherance of interest of substantial justice and not to obstruct the same on technicalities. Reference—Jai Jai Ram Manohar Lal v. National Building Material Supply; AIR 1969 SC 1267 , wherein it has been held that the substantial justice and technicalities, if pitted against each other, the cause of substantial justice should not be defeated on technicalities. No procedure in a Court of law should be allowed to defeat the cause of substantial justice on some technicalities. Reference—Ghanshyam Dass and others v. Dominion of India and others,, (1984) 3 SCC 46 . 9. In view of the aforesaid, this Court refuses to exercise its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Writ petition is dismissed. ————