JUDGMENT : A.K. Parichha, J. - An aggrieved student of Venketeswar English Medium School, Unit-IV, Bhubaneswar has filed this writ application for quashing of Annexure-1 wherein the committee constituted by Opp. Party No. 1 under Chapter-VI of the Rules of the Council for Conduct of Examination Centre rejected the representation of the Petitioner to extend the benefit of "Special Difficulty Procedure" and declare her passed the Indian School Certificate Examination (in short, 'ISCE') held in March, 2007. 2. The Petitioner's case, shorn of unnecessary details, is that she was a student of Class-X and had secured very good marks in internal and practical examinations conducted by Opposite Party No. 2 during the academic year 2006-07, but due to misfortune she suffered from jaundice and was bedridden from 26.02.2007 to 02.04.2007. During that period her father, who is her single parent, also fell seriously ill and had to undergo specialized treatment at Chennai from 09.12.2006 to 31.03.2007. In such unavoidable situation she could not sit in the final examination, which was held from 01.03.2007 to 26.3.2007. The father of the Petitioner requested the Council for the ISCE to consider the case of the Petitioner under the "Special Difficulty Procedure" contemplated in Chapter-VI, Rule-1 and declare her passed, but Opposite Party No. 1 did not consider the same properly and arbitrarily rejected the same. The Petitioner then submitted a review application dated 12.6.2007 to Opposite Party No. 1 but Opposite Party No. 1 did not respond to the same. Since the academic year had already begun and the Petitioner was going to lose a precious year, she filed W.P.(C) No. 6812 of 2007 assailing the inaction of Opposite Party No. 1 and praying for a direction to Opposite Party No. 1 to declare her pass from Class-X. Opposite Party No. 1 contested that Writ Petition with a plea that the Petitioner does not come under "Special Difficulty Procedure". That Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction to Opposite Party No. 2 to fill up the form of the Petitioner and send the same along with necessary materials to the Council-Opposite Party No. 1 within one week. That Writ Petition was disposed of with the direction to Opposite Party No. 2 to fill up the form of the Petitioner and send the same along with necessary materials to the Council-Opposite Party No. 1 within one week. It was further directed that Opposite Party No. 1 would consider the same in consonance with Chapter-VI of the Rules dealing with Special Difficulty of Candidates and pass necessary orders in consonance with the guidelines or the Rules specified and to complete such exercise within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the form. It is alleged by the Petitioner that although in the said Writ Petition this Court remarked that it was a fit case for committee's consideration under "Special Difficulty Procedure" and there is provision in Chapter-VI of the Rules that a candidate who is handicapped through whole of the examination can receive allowance in respect of more than one subject, Opposite Party No. 1 deliberately and arbitrarily rejected the representation of the Petitioner with the simple observation that Chapter-VI Rule 8(ii) prohibits extension of the benefit of "Special Difficulty Procedure" to a student, who failed to take part in the examination set and evaluated by the council. According to the Petitioner, such decision of Opposite Party No. 1 noted in Annexure-1 is contrary to the direction of this Court in W.P.(C) No. 8612 of 2007, the provision of Chapter-VI of the Rules of Council for Conduct of Examination Center, and is tainted with ulterior aim to mar the career of the Petitioner and, therefore, the same should be quashed. 3. Opposite Party No. 1 in its counter refuted the allegation and claim of the Petitioner and pleaded inter alia that the "Special Difficulty Procedure" contemplated under Chapter-VI of the Rules do not apply to students, who do not sit in the class-X examination held by the Council in view of the bar provided in Rule-8(ii) of Chapter-VI Part-II. It was also claimed that in the order of W.P.(C) No. 8612 of 2007 there was a simple direction to Opposite Party No. 2 to forward the form along with necessary information to the Council for their consideration according to the Rules or guidelines specified and in the said order there is no mandate that the case of the Petitioner comes under "Special Difficulty Procedure". Opposite Party No. 1 thus asserted that Annexure-1 is legally valid and cannot be quashed. 4. Opposite Party No. 2 in his counter mentioned that pursuant to the direction of the Court in W.P.(C) No. 8612 of 2007, he forwarded the form along with the required information indicating specifically that the Petitioner's average mark in school tests was 79.9%. It was also mentioned that the decision having been taken by Opposite Party No. 1 and the allegation of the Petitioner being basically against Opposite Party No. 1, Opposite Party No. 2 has nothing more to say. 5. A rejoinder was filed to the counter affidavit of Opposite Party No. 1, to which the Opposite Party No. 1 also filed counter rejoinder. In the rejoinder, the Petitioner claimed that Opposite Party No. 1 on earlier point of time extended benefit of "Special Difficulty Procedure" to one student of Rourkela although that student had not appeared in the final examination and that the difficulty of the Petitioner was not considered in its proper perspective. In counter rejoinder these allegation were refuted. The Petitioner thereafter did not press this point. 6. Mr. Debananda Mishra, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Petitioner reiterating the plea noted in the Writ Petition submitted-that the bar provided under the Rule-8(ii) of Chapter-VI Part-II does not apply to the Petitioner because the Petitioner had participated in the internal examination and practical examination held by the School and as such internal examination carries 20% out of the 100 marks in each subject, the Petitioner had already participated in the examination of Class-X. He further argued that in W.P.(C) No. 6812 of 2007 this Court observed that the Petitioner's case come under the "Special Difficulty Procedure" and, therefore, Opposite Party No. 1 was estopped from re-examining that aspect and recording a finding that the "Special Difficulty Procedure" does not apply to the case of the Petitioner. In this context, he cited the case Abdul Salam Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others. Mr. In this context, he cited the case Abdul Salam Vs. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Others. Mr. Mishra also argued that the Petitioner is a brilliant student, who was securing about 80% mark in all tests and examinations and had legitimate expectation of passing the Class-X examination with such percentage of mark, but due to her prolonged illness and the illness of her father, which was beyond her control, she could not appear in the final examination held by Opposite Party No. 1 and so the Opposite Parties were under legal obligation to consider her case sympathetically, particularly when the difficulty of the Petitioner amounted to misfortune as contemplated under Rule-1 of Chapter-VI Part-I of the Rules. In support of this contention, he relied on Union of India and others Vs. Hindustan Development Corpn. and others which dealt with the maxim of 'legitimate expectation'. 7. Mr. R.K. Rath, Learned Senior Counsel appearing for Opposite Party No. 1, on the other hand, submitted that "Special Difficulty Procedure" as contemplated under Chapter-VI of the Rules is meant for students who participate in the examination despite suffering from injury, bereavement or other misfortune and because such students' performance in the examination are likely to be affected adversely, the grace/benefits contemplated in the "Special Difficulty Procedure" are extended to them in limited manner, as prescribed in Chapter-VI Part-II Rule-8(iii). He argued that the Petitioner always took the stand that she did not appear in the final Class-X examination held by Opposite Party No. 1, so, she cannot now at this belated stage take a stand that her participation in the internal examination held by the School would amount to participation in the finale examination of Class-X because a party raising a point must plead the same and annex to the Writ Petition not only the facts but also the evidence in proof of the facts. In this regard, he cited the case of Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others. In this regard, he cited the case of Bharat Singh and Others Vs. State of Haryana and Others. He also argued that even if it is accepted for the sake of argument that the Petitioner participated in the internal test of the School and such participation amounted to participation in the final examination, yet she is only entitled to a small allowance of 3% marks as contemplated under Rule-8(iii) and, therefore, she cannot be declared to have passed Class-X examination where the minimum percentage of pass mark is 35. Mr. Rath argued that the orders of W.P.(C) No. 8612 of 2007 never operate as res judicata against Opposite Party No. 1 because in that order no where it was spelt that the Petitioner is entitled to be declared pass in Class-X examination under the "Special Difficulty Procedure". He stated that the order simply contained a direction to Opposite Party No. 2 to forward the prescribed form along with the required information to Opposite Party No. 1 and that Opposite Party No. 1 would consider the representation of the Petitioner according to the rules and guidelines. According to Mr. Rath, Opposite Party No. 2 duly forward the form along with the information, and the committee constituted by Opposite Party No. 1 considered the same according to the rules and guidelines specified and passed a reasoned order and, therefore, there is no scope for quashing of such Order when the settled legal norm is that the Courts would not normally interfere with the opinion of experts in the academic field. In this regard, he cited the case of Sanjay Kumar Manjul Vs. The Chairman, UPSC and Others. While concluding his argument, Mr. Rath stated that the guidelines and rules do not postulate extension of benefit of "Special Difficulty Procedure" to students who do not participate in the final examination held by the ISCE as that will encourage students, who are apprehensive of not doing well in the final examination, to resort to fake plea of illness and misfortune in order to pass the examination with high percentage of mark in a mala fide manner. Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No. 2. 8. Mr. Panda, Learned Counsel for Opposite Party No. 2 reiterated the contents of the counter affidavit filed by Opposite Party No. 2. 8. There is no dispute that the Petitioner was a student of Class-X in Venketeswar English Medium School at Bhubaneswar and was to appear in the ISCE 2007 examination during March, 2007 but she could not appear in the said examination, although she had participated in the internal test of the School. The Petitioner represented to Opposite Party No. 1 to declare her passed on the basis of her past performance in the school extending the benefit of "Special Difficulty Procedure" contemplated in Chapter-VI of the rules. But the representation was rejected by Opposite Party No. 1 on the ground that "Special Difficulty Procedure" benefit cannot be extended to students who took no part in the examination set and evaluated by the Council. The stand of the Petitioner is that her illness coupled with the illness of her father amount to misfortune, as noted in Rule-1 of Chapter-VI and Rule 8(ii) Part-II, will not apply to her case as she had already participated in the internal test held by the School. It is the stand of Opposite Party No. 1 that the benefit of "Special Difficulty Procedure" is not available to students who do not appear in the final examination held and assessed by the ISCE and, because the Petitioner did not appear in such examination set by the ISCE her case is hit by the bar provided in Chapter-VI Part-II Rule 8(ii). It is also asserted that participation in the internal test of the School cannot be considered as taking part in the examination set and evaluated by the Council. Before considering the rival submissions, it will be worthwhile to take note of the relevant provisions available in Chapter-VI Part I. Rules 1 and 2 read thus: 1. Special Difficulty Procedure Disability, illness or other misfortune: When a candidate suffers some injury, bereavement or other misfortune which may adversely affect his or her performance in the examination, the Special Difficulty Procedure is used. A form is submitted to the Council by the Principal of the candidate's school and the candidate's work is then given special consideration by a Committee before the issue of the results. A form is submitted to the Council by the Principal of the candidate's school and the candidate's work is then given special consideration by a Committee before the issue of the results. The Council's Committee does not give a 'blanket' concession but treats every case on its merits, for experience has shown that candidates working under similar unusual stress are affected in widely different ways. For this reason the Special Difficulty form provides for the performance of the affected candidate to be compared with that of unaffected classmates. 2. Special Arrangements Depending on the nature and degree of the handicap the Council is prepared to make additional special arrangements, subject to the Convener concerned being convinced of the need and able to provide the necessary facilities, and to the candidate accepting responsibility for any additional expenses which may be incurred. The following special arrangements are the most common, either singly or in various combinations. (a) Allowance of additional time. The normal maximum additional allowance is at the rate of 15 minutes in a 1 hour paper, 30 minutes in a 2-hour paper, and 45 minutes in a 3-hour paper, but these allowances may be varied according to circumstances. When a candidate's speed of writing is affected by his handicap, a greater allowance may be granted in a paper requiring extensive writing such as English Literature, or History than in a paper of, for example, the short answer type. (b) Use of an amanuensis. When a candidate's performance is affected to such an extent that any reasonable allowance of extra time would not meet the difficulty, the use of an amanuensis may be permitted (with or without extra time). The amanuensis normally would be a fellow pupil, who has not reached the same academic standard in the subject as the candidate. Similar arrangements may be permitted in practical examinations. (c) The typing of answers by the candidate. Refer to pages 29-30. (d) The question paper may be read out, but not explained in any way, to candidates who have defective eyesight or a certified reading disability. (e) If a candidate unavoidably misses part of the examination in a subject, the Committee is usually willing to make an allowance based on the work actually presented, provided that this amounts to at least half the total examination in the subject in terms of marks available, and covers a satisfactory portion of the syllabus. (e) If a candidate unavoidably misses part of the examination in a subject, the Committee is usually willing to make an allowance based on the work actually presented, provided that this amounts to at least half the total examination in the subject in terms of marks available, and covers a satisfactory portion of the syllabus. (f) For permission for the candidate to sit for the examination in hospital under supervision. The following conditions apply: (i) The arrangements are to be approved in advance by the Council. (ii) A medical certificate must be submitted confirming the need for the concession. (iii) Satisfactory invigilation must be guaranteed, in consultation with the Convener/Council, and details provided to the Council of the proposed invigilator. The invigilator must not be a member of the candidate's own family, but any responsible person may be named, preferably a teacher of another Council school. (iv) Any additional costs incurred are a matter of local arrangement in which the Council plays no part. (v) Unless the place of the examination is close enough to the School for question papers to be handed to the candidate after the start of the examination at the main centre, and for the completed script to be collected without undue delay, the Transfer Procedure must be followed, i.e., (a) The Council must be requested to provide question papers packed separately for the use of the candidate. (b) The script must be despatched in accordance with special instructions, which the Supervising Examiner receives from the Council. (c) The Supervising Examiner at the main centre must be instructed NOT to show the candidate as "absent" but to attach a note to the Attendance List explaining that the script in question is being despatched separately. (vi) If the candidate is suffering from an infectious disease, the school must seek the advice of the School doctor or a registered medical officer about the disinfection of the scripts before their despatch to the Council. (g) If the candidate is unable to take a paper for no fault of his own at the normal time, he may be allowed to take the paper later provided that security can be guaranteed. The Council requires written confirmation that the candidate has had no access, directly or indirectly, to information about the contents of the question paper. (g) If the candidate is unable to take a paper for no fault of his own at the normal time, he may be allowed to take the paper later provided that security can be guaranteed. The Council requires written confirmation that the candidate has had no access, directly or indirectly, to information about the contents of the question paper. In all but the most exceptional circumstances (e.g. isolated in hospital), the maximum permissible deviation from the normal timetable is 24 hours. Various sub-Sections of Section 2(f), will apply in all cases (Page-28). (h) Confidentiality. The "need-to-know" principle should be observed in cases affecting local candidates when they concern highly personal matters (e.g. parental discord). To avoid possible embarrassment to staff who may know the family in question, all relevant correspondence should be kept on a special confidential file. Sub-rules (i) (ii) and (iii) of Rule 8 dealing with Extent of the Allowance (General Principles) are quoted hereunder: (i) The guiding principle is that a candidate whose result has been adversely affected through no fault of his own should as far as possible be awarded a grade which, in the light of all reliable and available evidence, he would, beyond reasonable doubt, have attained in normal circumstances. (ii) No allowance in a subject can be made to a candidate who has taken no part of the examination set and evaluated by the Council. (iii) Normally a small allowance (about 3% of the marks available) is made where the paper has been completed, but if justified by the merits of the case, a slightly larger allowance may be made in a "hurdle" paper. It should be remembered that in a multi-paper subject in which all papers are affected, the allowance may legitimately be higher than in a single paper subject in terms of additional marks. A close reading of Rule 1 shows that "Special Difficulty Procedure" is permitted when performance of a student in the examination is adversely affected due to the candidate's suffering from some injury, bereavement or other misfortune. Rule 2 also indicates that allowance of additional time and permission to the candidate to sit in the hospital under the supervision, allowing answers to be typed, use of an amanuensis, etc. are permissible which otherwise indicate that the "Special Difficulty Procedure" is meant for students, who participate in the examination despite injury, bereavement, misfortune, etc. Rule 2 also indicates that allowance of additional time and permission to the candidate to sit in the hospital under the supervision, allowing answers to be typed, use of an amanuensis, etc. are permissible which otherwise indicate that the "Special Difficulty Procedure" is meant for students, who participate in the examination despite injury, bereavement, misfortune, etc. The wordings of these rules do not indicate that these facilities or concession are available to students who do not participate in the examination. Rule 8(ii) in positive terms says that no allowance in a subject can be made to a candidate who has taken no part of the examination set and evaluated by the Council. The wording of this sub-rule speaks about the examination set and evaluated by the Council. Internal tests are held and evaluated by the school for 20% marks whereas examinations for the rest 80% marks in each subject is set and evaluated by the Council. That being so, participation in internal tests of the school cannot be considered as participation in the examination set and evaluated by the Council. The claim of the Petitioner that her participation in the internal test of the school will amount to participation in the examination set and evaluated by the Council is, therefore, not acceptable. 9. Rule 8(iii) says that normally a small allowance of about 3% of mark is made available where the paper has been completed but a slightly larger allowance may be made in a 'hurdle' paper and in a multi-paper subject in which all papers are affected, the allowance may legitimately be higher than a single paper subject in terms of additional marks. Admittedly, the maximum internal marks in each subject is 20% whereas the minimum pass mark in each subject is 35%. Even if participation of the Petitioner in the internal tests of the School is accepted as participation in the examination set and evaluated by the Council then she would be entitled to 3% additional marks or a little more in the subjects. Those additional marks added to the internal marks would never be 35% and, therefore, her claim to declare her passed could not be favoured. 10. Those additional marks added to the internal marks would never be 35% and, therefore, her claim to declare her passed could not be favoured. 10. The next question is whether Opposite Party No. 1 and the committee appointed by it were estopped from deciding the issue as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to the allowance of "Special Difficulty Procedure" in view of the order in W.P.(C) No. 8612 of 2007. Law is settled that res judicata operates to the parties when the former and subsequent litigations are between the same parties and the issues directly involved in both the proceedings are the same. In the case of Abdul Salam v. State of Jammu and Kashmir and Ors. (supra), it was clarified that Judgment inter parties of a competent Court in a previous Writ Petition would operate as res judicata in a subsequent litigation between the same parties where the issues directly involved in the two proceedings are the same irrespective of the fact whether or not the decision in the earlier Writ Petition was founded on a view contrary to the one subsequently expressed by the Supreme Court in a different case. There is no dispute about the legal proposition. But in the present case the principle of res judicata is not applicable because in W.P.(C) No. 8612 of 2007 direction was that Opposite Party No. 2 would fill up the form and along with the other particulars which are required to be furnished send the form to the Council-Opposite Party No. 1 within a period of one week and that the Council committee would consider the same in consonance with Chapter-VI dealing with the special difficulties of candidates and pass necessary orders in consonance with the guidelines or the rules specified within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of the form. It is not in dispute that the form and the required information were furnished by Opposite Party No. 2 and the Council committee considered the same and completed the exercise within the prescribed period. In the order of W.P.(C) No. 8612 of 2007, no where it was held that concession of "Special Difficulty Procedure" would be extended to the Petitioner. It was simply mentioned that if the facts noted in that Writ Petition are correct, then the Principal should have recommended the matter to the Council in the prescribed form. In the order of W.P.(C) No. 8612 of 2007, no where it was held that concession of "Special Difficulty Procedure" would be extended to the Petitioner. It was simply mentioned that if the facts noted in that Writ Petition are correct, then the Principal should have recommended the matter to the Council in the prescribed form. Such an order did not debar Opposite Party No. 1 or the committee constituted by it from deciding as to whether the Petitioner is entitled to the concession contemplated under "Special Difficulty Procedure". That apart, law has been set at rest in several judicial pronouncements of the Apex Court including the cases of Tariq Islam Vs. Aligarh Muslim University and Others, that normally it is wise and safe for the Courts to leave the decision of academic matters to experts who are more familiar with the problems they face than the Courts generally are. In the present case, a committee constituted by experts in the academic field took a decision on the basis of guidelines and rules and their approach and decision does not appear to be perverse. In such a situation, it is not wise or prudent to interfere with the decision in exercise of extra ordinary power of Article 226 of the Constitution. 11. An argument was advanced from the side of the Petitioner that the Petitioner is a very good student securing 80% of mark in past examinations and had a legitimate expectation of securing such high percentage of mark in the final examination of Class-X held by the ISCE and further her future career and so, a sympathetic and humanitarian consideration should have been shown by Opposite Party No. 1., which would have fulfilled the legitimate expectation of the Petitioner. What is legitimate expectation and what rights flow from such expectation have been clarified in the case of Union of India and Ors. v. Hindustan Development Corpn. and Ors. (supra). In that Judgment it has been clearly stated that for legal purposes expectation cannot be same as anticipation, as it is different from a wish, a desire or a hope and it does not amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right. v. Hindustan Development Corpn. and Ors. (supra). In that Judgment it has been clearly stated that for legal purposes expectation cannot be same as anticipation, as it is different from a wish, a desire or a hope and it does not amount to a claim or demand on the ground of a right. So, however, earnest and sincere a wish, a desire or a hope may be, and however confidently one may look to them to be fulfilled, they by themselves can not amount to an assertable expectation and a mere disappointment does not attract legal consequences. A pious hope even leading to a moral obligation cannot amount to a legitimate expectation. The legitimacy of an expectation can be inferred only if it is founded on the sanction of law or custom or an established procedure followed in regular and natural sequence. Again it is distinguishable from a genuine expectation. Such expectation should be justifiably legitimate and protectable. Every such legitimate expectation does not also by itself fructify into a right and therefore it does not amount to a right in the conventional sense. Even legitimate expectation does not ipso facto confer a right or remedy. If a denial of legitimate expectation in a given case amounts to denial of right guaranteed or is arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or biased, gross abuse of power or violation of principle of natural justice, the same can be questioned on the well-known grounds attracting Article 14 of the constitution, but a claim based on mere legitimate expectation without anything more cannot ipso facto give a right to invoke these principles. 12. In the instant case, the Petitioner might have a pious expectation that she would have passed Class-X examination with flying colours and would have built a brilliant career, but there is no material to show that her guaranteed right was denied or that her expectation was denied in arbitrary, discriminatory, unfair or bias manner or that there was gross abuse of power. Rather the materials show that a committee duly constituted under the Rules considered the plea of the Petitioner and by reasoned order disposed of her representation. Rule does not prescribe any where that the Petitioner was to be given an opportunity of hearing before passing such order. Therefore, there was also no violation of any natural justice. Rather the materials show that a committee duly constituted under the Rules considered the plea of the Petitioner and by reasoned order disposed of her representation. Rule does not prescribe any where that the Petitioner was to be given an opportunity of hearing before passing such order. Therefore, there was also no violation of any natural justice. For all the aforesaid reasons, the Writ Petition is found to be without any substance and is dismissed. Final Result : Dismissed