Judgment : B.R. Gavai, J. 1] Rule. Rule, made returnable forthwith. Heard the matter finally with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties. 2] Since the questions of law and fact are common in all these petitions, the petitions are heard together and are disposed of by passing the common judgment. 3] All the petitioners are the students and they had appeared for the Summer 2012 examination conducted by the respondent-University. The results of the petitioners were declared in the months of June-July-2012. Since the petitioners felt that the results did not depict their real performance, the petitioners applied for supply of photostat copies as provided under Direction 9 issued by the University. The petitioners, after the receipt of the Photostat copies, challenged the valuation, as provided under Clause 9 of the said Directions. Since, in case of all the petitioners along with all other students, the result of challenge to valuation was declared as ‘No change’, the petitioners have approached this Court. Since it was specific contention that the result of ‘no change’ was declared, without there being proper valuation and since it was further challenged that same was not done by following the procedure as prescribed under Clause 9 of the said Direction, we had directed the respondent-University to get the answer-sheets reassessed on a random basis. We had further directed that the assessment should be done by the assessors who were not the assessors at earlier point of time. Accordingly, the respondent-university has reassessed the papers of eight students on random basis. The details of the same are as under : Roll No.s. 112762 190830 167575 169636 170851 150572 5455 5494 OriginalMarks Marks after re-assessment 21 23 23 37 16 38 16 23 21 40 22 33.5 15 39 25 30 4] Since, from the perusal of the said reassessment, it is apparent that there is drastic change in the marks obtained by the said candidates and the marks which were allotted to them and in respect of which ‘no change’ were notified. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-University has not conducted the challenge to valuation as provided under Clause 9 of the said Direction. 5] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the respondent-University has not conducted the challenge to valuation as provided under Clause 9 of the said Direction. It is submitted that the Committee, as required to be constituted under Clause 9, could not have been constituted in as much as the members, who were competent to be the members of the said Committee, were themselves not available. 6] The learned counsel for the petitioners submits that under the garb of process of revaluation only, only the farce of revaluation was done and without papers being revalued, ‘no change’ was notified. It is, therefore, submitted that the papers of the petitioners may be directed to be revalued and further that the petitioners may be permitted to appear for the examination which are commencing from 27.12.2012. 7] As against this, the learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India in such matters is very limited. It is submitted that in the matters pertaining to academic and education, the court should be slow in interfering with the decision of the authorities. Shri Patil, learned counsel, on instructions of the Hon’ble Vice Chancellor, had made a statement that the respondent-University is willing to revalue the papers of the petitioners. The learned counsel for the respondent-University submitted that in so far as grant of permission to appear for the examination commencing from 27.12.2012, the same cannot be granted, unless a decision in that regard is taken by the Board of Examination under the provisions of Section 18(1)(e), 31 and 32 of the Maharashtra Universities Act, 1994 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act’ for the purpose of brevity). 8] The learned counsel relied on the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another .vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 , Sahiti and others .vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 599 and Sanchit Bansal and another .vs. Joint Admission Board and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 157 . 9] No doubt, that the Court in the matters pertaining to academic and education is required to be slow in interfering with the decisions of the respondent-University. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 599 and Sanchit Bansal and another .vs. Joint Admission Board and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 157 . 9] No doubt, that the Court in the matters pertaining to academic and education is required to be slow in interfering with the decisions of the respondent-University. Equally, we do not possess expertise to find out as to whether the valuation done by the valuers appointed by the University is done correctly or not and especially so in a technical subject like engineering about which we are not even aware of A B C. In that view of the matter, though the learned counsel for the petitioners had urged before us to revalue the papers to examine the correctness of the valuation or otherwise, we had refrained to do so and as such, we had directed the respondent-University to get the revaluation done by the independent assessor, so that a independent opinion by the experts, who are trusted by the University, is available with us for consideration. We must appreciate the gesture on behalf of the respondent-University in accepting the request and getting the papers revalued from the independent assessors, who were not party to the earlier assessors. The result of an assessment by an independent assessors, which shows that the petitioners were entitled to more marks than the ones allotted to them and in respect of the ‘no change’ was notified. 10] In so far as the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another .vs. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 is concerned, the Apex Court was considering the question of validity of Regulation 104 (1) (3), which denied the revaluation of answer papers. The Apex Court held that such a rule is not in violation of natural justice. The Apex Court in the said case has observed thus : “The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and departments controlling them. The Apex Court in the said case has observed thus : “The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and departments controlling them. It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one were to be propounded.” 11] In the case of Sahitiand others .vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others, reported in (2009) 1 SCC 599 , the Apex Court was considering the question of the decision of the Vice-Chancellor of the University of re-evaluation of answer-sheets of 436 students, who had failed in the first year M.B.B.S. Examination. In the said case, the Vice-Chancellor had decided to revalue the answer-sheets of 436 students out of 992 students. The said decision was cancelled by the Executive Council. The students, being aggrieved thereby, filed a petition before the learned Single Judge of High Court Andhra Pradesh. The said writ petition was allowed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court. Being aggrieved thereby, the University preferred an appeals before the Division Bench and the Division Bench allowed the appeals and set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In an appeal challenging therein, the Apex Court found that though the Vice-Chancellor had a power to direct evaluation, the said power was exercised by him under the pressure of some of the students and that too selectively in case of some students and not all the students. In these premises, the High Court found that if the Vice-Chancellor found that revaluation is necessary, he should have directed so in case of all the students and not in case of 436 students. In view of this, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. In these premises, the High Court found that if the Vice-Chancellor found that revaluation is necessary, he should have directed so in case of all the students and not in case of 436 students. In view of this, the said judgment would not be applicable to the facts of the present case. 12] In so far as the judgment in the case of Sanchit Bansal and another .vs. Joint Admission Board and others, reported in (2012) 1 SCC 157 is concerned, the learned counsel for the respondent-University relies specifically to paragraph nos.27 and 28 of the said judgment. Paragraph nos.27 and 28 read thus : “Thus, the process of evaluation, the process of ranking and selection of candidates for admission with reference to their performance, the process of achieving the objective of selecting candidates who will be better equipped to suit the specialised courses, are all technical matters in academic field and the courts will not interfere in such processes. The courts will interfere only if they find all or any of the followings : (i) violation of any enactment, statutory rules and regulations; (ii) mala fides or ulterior motives to assist or enable private gain to someone or cause prejudice to anyone; or where the procedure adopted is arbitrary and capricious. An action is said to be arbitrary and capricious, where a person, in particular, a person in authority does any action based on individual discretion by ignoring prescribed rules, procedure or law and the action or decision is founded on prejudice or preference rather than reason or fact. To be termed as arbitrary and capricious, the action must be illogical and whimsical, something without any reasonable explanation. When an action or procedure seeks to achieve a specific objective in furtherance of education in a bona fide manner, by adopting a process which is uniform and non-discriminatory, it cannot be described as arbitrary or capricious or mala fide.” The Apex court in the case of Sanchit Bansal (cited supra) itself has held that when an action of authority is found to be arbitrary or unreasonable, the court would not be prevented from exercising its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Since we find from the perusal revaluation on the random basis, in the case of eight students, the respondent-University has acted in a mechanical manner, this is a fit case wherein this Court should exercise jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 13] In the present case, there is procedure prescribed for providing challenge to the valuation. Clause No.9 of Direction No.5 of 2004 specifically provides for the procedure to be followed by the respondent-University, which reads thus : 4] Eligibility : i] The examinee shall be entitled to apply in prescribed form along with requisite fees for photo copies only of his/her assessed answer books of such university examination (s) in which he has appeared. ii] The examinee shall be eligible to apply for the photo copy of maximum two answer book (s) of each immediately preceding university examination (s) for which he had appeared. iii] The examinee shall not be eligible to apply for the photo copy of the answer book (s) pertaining to the practical, sessional, viva-voce examinations, dissertation, thesis and also of such university examination (s) where only grade is awarded instead of numerical marking. 5] Procedure for Application : i] The examinee, hereinafter referred to as “Person”, alone shall be entitled to procure the photo copy of the assessed answer book (s). ii] A person desirous of procuring the photo copy of the answer book (s) shall be required to apply in the prescribed form. (Appendix-A.) iii] The person shall be required to submit separate application for each examination. iv] The application form is made available by the university currently at the price of Rs.10/-per form or at such price as may be prescribed by the university from time to time. v] The person shall have to submit application form within 12 days (both days inclusive) from the date of declaration of results of the concerned examination (s). vi] The person shall have to submit application at the same college where he/she had submitted the examination form (s) for the concerned examination (s). vii] An application form received after the last date shall not be accepted by the principal of the concerned college. vi] The person shall have to submit application at the same college where he/she had submitted the examination form (s) for the concerned examination (s). vii] An application form received after the last date shall not be accepted by the principal of the concerned college. viii] Application form shall be accompanied by the prescribed non-refundable fee of Rs.300/-per answer book or such fee as may be prescribed by the university from time to time payable in Cash or Demand Draft, drawn in the name of the Registrar, Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur. ix] The application must be accompanied by a Xerox copy of the mark list of the concerned examination (s) attested by the Principal of the College/Gazetted Officer of the State/Central Government. x] The Principal of the College on receipt of such application (s) shall scrutinize and submit them to the university in examination-wise separate covers along-with fees so collected by D.D. in the name of Registrar, Rashtrasant Tukadoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur not later than 3 (three) days (both days inclusive) of the last date of submission of application forms of the concerned examination (s). xi] Application (s) received after due date shall not be accepted by the university. xii] Applications incomplete in any respect shall be liable to be rejected. xiii] Upon receipt of the application forms by the university from the colleges. “The Photo/Xerox copies Cell of the University” shall requisition, in writing, the concerned answer books of the examinee from the godown of assessed answer books of the university and shall then scrutinize the same for the following : (a) Whether the total marks in the given paper awarded to the examinee on the mark list matches with the marks awarded to the examinee on the cover page of the answer book. (b) Whether the question-wise marks awarded to all the questions inside the answer book are correctly carried over on to the cover page. (c) Whether the total of the question-wise marks on the cover page is correct. (d) Whether all the answers in the answer book have been assessed by the examiner. (b) Whether the question-wise marks awarded to all the questions inside the answer book are correctly carried over on to the cover page. (c) Whether the total of the question-wise marks on the cover page is correct. (d) Whether all the answers in the answer book have been assessed by the examiner. (e) If any discrepancy on any of the counts under Clause a, b or c mentioned hereinabove is/are noted the same shall be corrected by the university with the authentication by the Controller of Examinations or the person designated by the Vice-Chancellor and finally verified by the Pro.Vice-Chancellor of the university. (f) If any question or part of it in the answer book is observed to be unvalued, the same shall be got valued from the examiner in the subject and additional marks, if any, awarded shall be then carried, noted and added on the cover page also and accordingly the total of the marks shall be corrected with the authentication by the Controller of Examinations or a person designated by the Vice-Chancellor for the purpose, and finally certified by the Pro-Vice-Chancellor. (g) The change, if any, on above counts shall be informed to the examinee by necessary notification and corrected mark list shall also be issued to the examinee on his/her surrendering the original mark list to the university through the college through which the application was made. (h) The xerox copy of the answer book shall be made on the machine, duly concealing the identity of examinee, examiner and moderator, if any. The concerned designated officer shall certified the last written page of the answer book by placing the stamp, stating that the pages after the last written page is or are blank (s) and hence the xerox copy of the blank pages of the assessed answer book are not supplied to the examinee, the concerned designated officer shall sign in original on the space provided for the stamp. (i) The photo copies of the answer books shall be sent to the Principal of respective colleges for further issuance to the concerned applicant on procurement of written acknowledgment from him/her. (j) The university will endeavour to supply photo copies to the principal of the concerned colleges/as for as possible within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of application forms by the university. (j) The university will endeavour to supply photo copies to the principal of the concerned colleges/as for as possible within 30 (Thirty) days from the date of receipt of application forms by the university. 14] It is thus clear that a complete procedure is required to be followed prior to coming to the conclusion as to whether any challenge is required to be interfered with or not. Though it is a specific contention of the petitioners that no procedure as prescribed under Clause 9 of the direction was followed, except mere denial, there is nothing in the affidavit-in-reply. No details are given whether the Committees are required under Clause 9 were constituted or not. Except vague denial, there is nothing in affidavit-in-reply. The respondent-University has also not produced anything on record to point out as to whether the entire procedure, as provided under Clause 9 of the said direction, was followed or not. 15] Mr. P.B. Patil, learned counsel for the respondent-University, fairly concedes that the revaluation is done by the valuer sitting in hall and they are required to do the valuation as per their conscious. No doubt, every valuer is answerable to their conscious. However, in such technical subjects, the valuers are required to value the papers objectively after taking into consideration as to whether the answers are correct or not, rather than deciding it, according to their own conscious. We are conscious about the judgments of the Apex Court that in such matters the court’s interference would be minimal and only in exceptional cases. No doubt that the court would not be expected to issue any direction pertaining to the academic matters and to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise. Equally, the Court cannot sit in an appeal over the decision of the experts. However, in the present matter, we do not wish to encroach upon the field which requires technical expertise or specialization which is totally within the domain of the respondent-University. However, when on random basis out of eight papers, the change has been found in respect of all the eight papers and change in matter is found to be substantiated. However, in the present matter, we do not wish to encroach upon the field which requires technical expertise or specialization which is totally within the domain of the respondent-University. However, when on random basis out of eight papers, the change has been found in respect of all the eight papers and change in matter is found to be substantiated. It has been found that the candidates, whose papers are reassessed by an independent assessors, were entitled to more marks than the one given to them and in respect of which ‘no change’ was notified. We find that the court cannot sit as an idle spectator and permit the respondent-University to play with the careers of the students. We may add that if the independent assessors, who were selected by the respondent-University, would have found that the marks obtained by the petitioners were proper, we would not have at all entertain the present petitioners. However, the fact that in respect of all the eight candidates, who’s papers are reassessed by the University, it has been found that the said candidates were entitled to more marks than the one allotted to them, we find that it is a fit case wherein the respondent-University should be directed to revalue the papers of the petitioners by an independent assessors, who were not the party to earlier assessment. 16] Since in the assessment carried out in case of eight candidates, it has been noticed that there has been substantial change in the marks and had the revaluation being carried out correctly, they would have declared as cleared the subject, we find that, in the interest of justice, it is also necessary to permit the petitioners to appear for the examination which are commencing from 27.12.2012. However, this shall be subject to the result of the revaluation. If the revaluation process, the petitioners do not get the marks to clear the subjects, their appearance in the examination shall be liable to be cancelled and they shall not claim any equity on the ground of their participation in the examination process. 17] We are inclined to pass such a direction since it will not be humanly possible for the respondent-University to complete the revaluation of the papers of the petitioners within a period of 7 days from today. 18] We are required to pass this unusual order in the glaring facts and circumstances. 17] We are inclined to pass such a direction since it will not be humanly possible for the respondent-University to complete the revaluation of the papers of the petitioners within a period of 7 days from today. 18] We are required to pass this unusual order in the glaring facts and circumstances. At the cost of repetition, we reiterate that we are aware about the limitations in such matters. However, since we find that there is glaring mistake at the hands of the respondent-university, we are compelled to pass order which we are passing in the interest of the students. In that view of the matter, the petitions are allowed in the following terms : [i] The respondent-University is directed to revalue the papers of the petitioners as per the provisions prescribed under Clause 9 of the Direction No.5 of 2004. [ii] The respondent-University shall permit the petitioners to appear for the examination commencing from 27.12.2012, however, this shall be subject to outcome of the result of the petitioners’ revaluation of the papers. [iii] In the event, the petitioners are not declared passed after revaluation, the appearance of the petitioners in the examination shall be liable to be treated as cancelled and the petitioners would not be entitled to claim any equity on that part. [iv] Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms with no order as to costs.