Judgment : In these writ petition the petitioners have prayed for a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the decision taken by respondents 2 and 3 dated 26-12-2009 as per AnnexureE1 to send the Tamil Medium D.Ed. answer sheets of September 2009 examination for evaluation to the State of Tamil Nadu and for a writ of mandamus to give effect to and to announce the results on the basis of original evaluation done in the State of Karnataka and for other reliefs. 2. Some of the petitioners are recognized colleges imparting education in Diploma in Education (D.Ed.) in Tamil Medium. Other petitioners are the students in these colleges studying in Tamil Medium D.Ed. Course. 3. D.Ed. course is a two year course. Admission to D.Ed. course is governed by the regulations, norms and standards framed by the National Council for the Teachers Education under the provisions of National Council for Teachers Education Act, 1993 and also the Rules framed by the first respondent-Government. In the matter of conducting examination to D.Ed. course, the examining body is the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board headed by the third respondent. Between 15.9.2009 and 19.9.2009 examinations were conducted for the first year and second year D.Ed. courses for the academic year 2008-09. After examination, the answer scripts were sent to valuation camps for evaluation. When the valuation was in progress, the third respondent visited the valuation camps and found that the valuators have given maximum marks to each and every student invariably. Further the third respondent noticed that the marks are not assigned as per the answers written by student and that the valuators have not valued the answers properly. The third respondent deputed subject experts to the valuation camps to see whether the valuators have valuated the scripts correctly or not. The subject experts visited the valuation camps, inspected the work done by the valuators and submitted a report aas per Annexure-R2 and R3. In Annexure-R2 it is stated as under: TAMIL The following are the finding to be reported._ As per the oral directions of the Director (Other examination) Mrs. Prathima, scrutinizing of the examinations scripts which have been already valued has been undertaken at random at the rate of two scripts drawn in randam bundles. 1. Evaluation is not fair and order. 2. Seems many papers are not valued by experienced valuators. 3. Awarding of marks are not proportionate. Prathima, scrutinizing of the examinations scripts which have been already valued has been undertaken at random at the rate of two scripts drawn in randam bundles. 1. Evaluation is not fair and order. 2. Seems many papers are not valued by experienced valuators. 3. Awarding of marks are not proportionate. 4. Deserving students got less marks. 5. undeserving examinees got high marks. 6. Carry over of marks to the front page has not been done properly. 7. Questions were repeated instead of answers all were awarded marks. 8. Some answers were repeated for all questions and marks were awarded. 9. Marks awarded to the same answers in more than one place. 10. Marks were awarded for irrelevant answers. In Annexure-R3 the observations are as under: OBSERVATIONS All the forty-five answer scripts were scrutinized and impartially in accordance with the marking scheme supplied evaluation was done. For completing this work in time Dr. Sukumar, Reader in Zoology was asked to help in evaluation and translation. Following are the observations: 1. The candidates use empty words to fill up the pages and no meaningful answers were seen. 2. When we go through the scripts the impression when we could get is only a minimum quantum of knowledge was gained by the students which they try to exhibit with empty words filling up the pages. 3. The first valuation was not in accordance with the marking scheme and the second valuation is almost correct when it was compared with the marking scheme. 4. The evaluation – the marks given by us was compared with the earlier two valuers and found and second valuation matches with us. Hence, I am of the opinion that the second valuation may be taken as correct one. 5. When the translation was done it was found that some of the paragraphs were not containing any meaningful phrases and hence not possible to translate. 4. After securing the reports at Annexures-R2m and R3, the third respondent approached the second respondent for permission to send the answer sheets for second valuation to the State Tamil Nadu and the same was granted under the impugned order dated 26-12-2009 as per Annexure-E1. After the second valuation of the answer scripts, the third respondent announced the results on 17-12-2009. After securing the reports at Annexures-R2m and R3, the third respondent approached the second respondent for permission to send the answer sheets for second valuation to the State Tamil Nadu and the same was granted under the impugned order dated 26-12-2009 as per Annexure-E1. After the second valuation of the answer scripts, the third respondent announced the results on 17-12-2009. Petitioners being the colleges and the students aggrieved by the impugned order at Annexure-E1 are before this Court for a writ of certiorari and for a writ of mandamus to announce the results on the basis of the original evaluation done. 5. Sri. D.S. Ramachandra Reddy, learned Counsel for the petitioners firstly contend that conducting the examination to the D.Ed. Course is entrusted to Karnataka Secondary Examination Board headed by the third respondent. The third respondent is required to discharge his duties in accordance with the Karnataka Secondary Education Examination Board Act, 1966, the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations thereunder (for short, the ‘Act and Rules’). It is contended that the Act, the Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations do not provide for revaluation of answer scripts relating to D.Ed. course. Therefore, the impugned order at Annexure-E1 to send the answer scripts for revaluation to Tamil Nadu is impermissible under law and on that ground the same is liable to be quashed. In support of this contention reliance is placed on a judgment of the Supreme Court in Gwalior Rayons Silk Manufacturing (Weaving) Company Limited v Custodian of Vested Forests, Palghat and Another1 , wherein it is held as under: “14. It is said, indeed rightly, that in seeking legislative intention, Judges not only listen to the voice of the Legislature but also listen attentively to what the Legislature does not say. Let us compare the wordings in Section 3 with those of sub-clause (c). Under Section 3, sub-section (1), private forests vest in Government, sub-clause (2), however, excludes from such vesting lands within the ceiling limits applicable to an owner if they are under his personal cultivation. Cultivation for this purpose “includes cultivation of trees or plants of any species”. The explanation to sub-section (2) makes this aspect beyond doubt. The lands used for cultivation of any kind of tree, fruit-bearing or yielding only timber or pulp are not vested under sub-section (2). The Legislature has thus excluded from vesting under Section 3, sub-section (2) the trees of every variety. The explanation to sub-section (2) makes this aspect beyond doubt. The lands used for cultivation of any kind of tree, fruit-bearing or yielding only timber or pulp are not vested under sub-section (2). The Legislature has thus excluded from vesting under Section 3, sub-section (2) the trees of every variety. But while providing for exclusion under sub-clause (c), the Legislature could not have again thought of trees or plants of all kinds. It seems to have considered only fruit-bearing trees and not of other species. If the intention was otherwise, the sub-clause (c) would have been in a different language”. 6. Per contra, Sri K.M. Nataraj, learned Additional Advocate General for respondents submit that after the first valuation of answer scripts by the valuators in Karnataka, the results were not announced. Therefore, no right is accrued to the petitioners, which is affected by the second evaluation. It is contended that there is no revaluation of answer scripts and on the other hand it was only a second valuation. Since the first valuation is affected by mal-practice, fraud and improper valuation of answers, the impugned decision taken by the second respondent in the interest of academic standards is in accordance with law and the same do not call for interference. Reliance is placed on the following decisions: (i) Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh v Abhilash Shiksha Prasar Samiti and Others1; (ii) Sahiti and Others v Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Science and Others2. 7. Heard arguments on both the sides and perused the entire writ papers. 8. It is not in dispute that after the examinations in September 2009 for the first and second year D.Ed. courses, in Tamil medium the answer scripts were valued by the valuators in Karnataka and the results were not announced. Before the results are announced the respondents have notice certain fraud and improper valuation of answer scripts and therefore, under the impugned order decided to send the answer scripts for second valuation. Since the results of the first valuation were not announced no right is accrued in favour of the petitioners. In the absence of any vested right to the petitioners, they cannot contend that their rights are affected by the impugned order. On this ground the writ petition are liable to be rejected. 9. Since the results of the first valuation were not announced no right is accrued in favour of the petitioners. In the absence of any vested right to the petitioners, they cannot contend that their rights are affected by the impugned order. On this ground the writ petition are liable to be rejected. 9. The third respondent visited the valuation campus, conducted a check and found that the valuators have given maximum marks to each and every student invariably. Further the third respondent deputed subject experts to the valuation campus to see that the valuators have valuated the answer scripts correctly or not. The expert’s report at Annexure-R2 and R3 manifestly makes it clear that the valuation is not for, not evaluated by expert valuators, marks are awarded not proportionately, deserving students got less marks, undeserving students got higher marks, repeated questions were awarded marks, repeated answers were also awarded marks, marks are awarded for irrelevant answers etc. It is also seen from the report that the first valuation was not in accordance with the marking scheme. In the circumstances, the impugned decision at Annexure-E1 to send the answer scripts for second evaluation is in accordance with law, justice to maintain the sanctity of examination and academic standards. I find no justifiable ground to interfere with the impugned order. 10. The contention of learned Counsel for the petitioners that the Act, Rules, Bye-laws and Regulations do not empower the respondents for revaluating the answer scripts is unacceptable to me. Firstly, it is not the case of revaluation, secondly even in the absence of specific provision under the Act and Rules, enabling the respondents to take a decision for second valuation is certainly within the implied powers as the Executive Officers for conducting examination. In identical circumstances, the Supreme Court in the case of Madhyamic Shiksha Mandal, held that the Executive Officers responsible for conducting examinations are having the implied powers to take necessary decision to maintain the sanctity of examinations and academic standards. For the reasons stated above, the writ petitions are hereby rejected.