JUDGMENT :- RamachandranNair, J. – This Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge, who declined to order revaluation of the answer book of the appellant in the subject "Differential Geometry", which is a first year subject for the M.Sc course in Mathematics. 2. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the appellant and learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University. 3. The learned Single Judge declined to order revaluation because the Examination Regulations do not provide for a 2nd revaluation. Even though in principle, we completely agree with the learned Single Judge, we felt there is necessity to examine the credibility of valuation of answer books got done by the University. We therefore verified the marks awarded to the appellant in valuation and revaluation in another subject, namely Functional Analysis, in which also the appellant had originally failed but passed after revaluation. The marks awarded to the appellant in the subject "Functional Analysis" in valuation and revaluation are given below:- Marks awarded (out of 75) Result Original Valuation 20 Failed First revaluation 38 Passed Second revaluation 40 Passed Marks ultimately awarded 39 Passed (average of revaluations) The Examination Regulations provide that if on first revaluation the marks awarded is more than 10% of the marks originally awarded then the paper should be sent for a second revaluation and average of both the revaluation marks should be given to the candidate. It is by following this provision in the Regulations, the appellant's answer book in the subject "Functional Analysis" was sent for a second revaluation and the average marks of 39 was given as against 20 marks awarded in the first valuation to the appellant. In our view, in a subject like Functional Analysis, which is a part of the curriculum of the M.Sc degree course in Mathematics, there cannot be such fluctuation in awarding of marks while valuation of answer books. Since there is very little difference in the marks awarded in two revaluations, the revaluations are acceptable. However, surprisingly the marks awarded in the two revaluations are almost double the marks awarded in the original valuation. Since there is very little difference in the marks awarded in two revaluations, the revaluations are acceptable. However, surprisingly the marks awarded in the two revaluations are almost double the marks awarded in the original valuation. In spite of the magnitude of variation between the original valuation got done by the University and the subsequent two revaluations, the University has not bothered to order an enquiry in respect of the first valuation, wherein the marks awarded is only 50% of the marks granted based on revaluations. 4. In view of the award of almost double the marks after revaluation to the appellant in the subject "Functional Analysis", the result of which is a dramatic change i.e. pass from failure, we have considered the results of original valuation and revaluation in the subject "Differential Geometry", wherein the appellant has sought a 2nd revaluation under orders of this Court. The marks obtained in original valuation was 21. Strangely on revaluation got done by the University, the marks awarded was 11. Even though the variation from first revaluation is almost 100%, the University did not agree for second revaluation because the Examination Regulations do not provide for a 2nd revaluation if the marks obtained in first revaluation is less than the marks obtained in original valuation irrespective of the percentage of variation. In view of the thoroughly unsatisfactory quality of valuation of the answer books in the subjects in M.Sc (Mathematics), we felt that assistance of an expert from another University should be called for and a second revaluation in the subject "Differential Geometry" should be tried. Accordingly, based on the suggestion of the Vice Chancellor of the Cochin University of Science and Technology, we ordered revaluation of the appellant's answer books in two subjects, namely "Functional Analysis" and "Differential Geometry" by Dr.M.N.Narayanan Namboodiri, Assistant Professor, Department of Mathematics of that University. As requested by us, he has conducted revaluation of the answer books of the appellant in the two subjects above referred and has forwarded details thereof, wherein the marks awarded to the appellant on each question is specifically mentioned by him. In the revaluation done by Dr.Namboodiri appointed by us, the appellant has got 36 marks in the subject Functional Analysis, which is comparable to the average marks awarded in the two revaluations done by M.G. University. In the revaluation done by Dr.Namboodiri appointed by us, the appellant has got 36 marks in the subject Functional Analysis, which is comparable to the average marks awarded in the two revaluations done by M.G. University. Therefore, we do not think any change is called for in the marks awarded by the University based on two revaluations. However what we notice is that marks awarded by Dr.Namboodiri to the appellant in the subject "Differential Geometry" is 30 whereas the marks originally awarded to the appellant in the original valuation by the M.G.University is 21 and on revaluation 11. We accept the credibility of the valuation done by Dr.Namboodiri because in the first place his valuation is comparable to the result of two revaluations in one subject. Secondly, we are sure that since Dr.Namboodiri was valuing only one paper in one subject that too under Court orders, he would have been extremely careful in the valuation of answers given by the appellant in the answer books. We therefore direct the respondent University to accept the result of revaluation done by Dr.Namboodiri and award 30 marks to the appellant in the subject Differential Geometry and declare her result. 5. Even though learned counsel for the University cited two decisions of the Supreme Court in West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das, reported in 2007 (4) KLT 535 and in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth & others, reported in 1984(4) SCC 27 and contended that in the absence of the Regulations there is no justification for a second revaluation, we have noticed that difference of marks in the first revaluation got done by the University in the subject Differential Geometry is around 100% and therefore, we felt that the original valuation lacks credibility warranting a second revaluation. In fact this stands proved with the result of the revaluation done by Dr.Namboodiri appointed by us. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the University against the revaluation ordered by us under interim orders. It is a matter for the Academic Council of the University to consider whether fitness of lecturers and professors engaged in valuation should be considered before engaging them in the job. 6. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the University against the revaluation ordered by us under interim orders. It is a matter for the Academic Council of the University to consider whether fitness of lecturers and professors engaged in valuation should be considered before engaging them in the job. 6. Before parting with the matter, we direct the University to conduct an enquiry about the qualification and eligibility of the persons who made original valuation in both the subjects and revaluation in the subject Differential Geometry and see whether they are fit persons to continue in their job as Lectures or Professors, or otherwise to take appropriate action. The Registry will, on application and at the cost of the appellant as well as the respondents, issue certified copies of the mark sheets sent by Dr.Namboodiri and also photocopies of the answer books valued by him. The Registry will before issuing copy of the judgment get a DD for Rs.750/- from the appellant payable to Dr.M.N.Narayanan Namboodiri and forward it to Dr.Namboodiri and report compliance to the Court. This Writ Appeal is allowed as above.