ORAL JUDGMENT S.A. Bobde, J. By these writ petitions the petitioners who are students seek revaluation of the answer papers of English subject. Some students also seek revaluation of Economics subject. 2. The petitioners are seeking revaluation of their answer books of English and Economics Higher Secondary (XII Std.) Examination. It appears from the facts stated in the petition that the petitioners have been doing well in their studies and have also obtained a good percentage of marks in English in the earlier examinations. However, in the present examination, they are aggrieved by the marks that have been awarded to them in the subject of English. The petitioners in writ petition Nos. 361 and 371 have averred that they are good in Economics and have been awarded inadequate marks also in that subject. 3. Mr. Mulgaonkar learned counsel for the respondents relied on Rule 80 of the Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Rules, 1975, Rule 80, sub-rule (3) reads as follows : 80(3) No application shall be entertained for re-assessment of answer book. 4. The learned counsel is correct in submitting that there is a bar imposed on revaluation/reassessment of answer books. Mr. V. Menezes, learned counsel for the petitioners however relied on a judgment of Division Bench of this Court in Akshay s/o Dilip Bhalerao v. State of Maharashtra and others, reported in 2005 (4) Mh LJ 909, in which having regard to the special circumstances in that case, the Division Bench directed revaluation. The Division Bench took care to point out that its decision should not be construed as a precedent but should be confined to the facts and circumstances of these petitions only. It is thus clear that the decision is not a precedent in the eyes of law. In fact, we find that the aforesaid decision is contrary to the judgment of the Supreme Court, in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, etc., reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 . In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Regulation 104(3) of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977, which barred revaluation of the answer books. This regulation was similar to the rule relied upon by the respondent in this case. In that case, the Supreme Court upheld the validity of Regulation 104(3) of the Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Boards Regulations, 1977, which barred revaluation of the answer books. This regulation was similar to the rule relied upon by the respondent in this case. In paragraph 16, the Supreme Court observed as follows : "In our opinion, the aforesaid approach made by the High Court is wholly incorrect and fallacious. The Court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wide policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw backs in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity in the sense of it being wholly beyond the scope of the relations making power of it being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution." 5. It must be noted that there is no challenge to the validity of the rules framed under the Goa, Daman and Diu Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education Rules, 1975. In fact it is pointed by Mr. Mulgaonkar that a similar rule which barred the revaluation of answer books in Goa has been upheld by the Supreme Court in M/s. A.T. Brij Paul Singh and others v. State of Gujarat, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 59 . Further Shri Mulgaonkar brought to our notice the decision in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and another, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 383 . Further Shri Mulgaonkar brought to our notice the decision in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda and another, reported in (2004) 13 SCC 383 . In that case the Supreme Court has clearly held that revaluation of answer books should not be directed in the absence of clear rules in that regard. The Lordship reserved the judgment of Orissa Board of Secondary Examination by which Orissa High Court has directed revaluation of the answer books of the students in question. 6. We have here a situation in which there is not only no clear rule permitting the revaluation of answer books but on the other hand, a clear rule which bars revaluation. 7. Therefore, without going into the merits of the petitioners claim for revaluation, dismiss the petitions. There shall be no order as to costs. Petition dismissed.