Judgment :- 1. The petitioner has filed the present writ petition seeking for a direction to the respondents to value the answer book of the petitioner with registration No.373512 to revalue the answer book in the subject of Biology by the competent valuer. 2. When this writ petition came up on 29.06.2012, this court directed Mr.P.Sanjai Gandhi, learned Additional Government Pleader to get instructions from the respondents. Accordingly, the learned Additional Government Pleader produced a photo copy of the answer book given by the petitioner and also filed a counter affidavit, dated Nil (July, 2012). He also produced the key answer sheet in respect of the said question paper. In the counter affidavit, in paragraphs 2 to 5 it was averred as follows : "2.) It is submitted that Minor Janarthanan.B represented by his father wrote the Higher Secondary Examination held in March 2012 with Register Number 373512. The Petitioner filed the above writ petition asking the respondent to 3 marks to Q.No.24/Section B in the Bio-Zoology Subject. What are the Scientific inventions that helped in paving way for origin of Bioinformatics? Key answer given is : Scientific inventions paved the way for the origin of Bio-Informatics. a. The advancement in molecular biology b. The invention of computers c. Ultra developments in scientific methodlogies. d. Introduction of instrumentation at nano level..... 3 Marks. Answer written by candidate is : The scientific inventions that helped in paving way for origin of bioinformatics are *Amino acid sequence of bovine insulin (1950's) *Nucleic acid sequence of yeast t-RNA with 77 bases (1960's) *X-ray crystallographic structure of Protein. 3.) It is submitted that the above question is taken from the Bio-Zoology Text Book Page No.133, 2nd paragraph (English medium) published by the Tamil Nadu Text book corporation. This is under the Heading " Bioinformatics and it comes under the sub title History of Bioinformatics. During the last three decades, the advancement in molecular biology, the invention of computer, ultra developments in scientific methodologies and introduction of instrumentation at nano level, have paved the way for the origin of biolinformatics. 4.) It is submitted that the key answer is based on INVENTIONS and not on PRELIMINARY DISCOVERIES. But answer written by the candidate is based only on Preliminary discoveries and in no way connected with INVENTIONS during the last three decades, have paved the way for the origin of Bioinformatics. 4.) It is submitted that the key answer is based on INVENTIONS and not on PRELIMINARY DISCOVERIES. But answer written by the candidate is based only on Preliminary discoveries and in no way connected with INVENTIONS during the last three decades, have paved the way for the origin of Bioinformatics. 5.) It is submitted that the answer written by candidate is completely wrong. This answer relates only to BASIS AND ORIGINAL DATABASES FOR DATA ENTRIES AND FILE MAKING and not with the Scientific inventions. (Page No.133, 3rd Paragraph)." 3. In the light of the stand taken, the case of the petitioner cannot be countenanced. The Supreme Court in Secretary, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das reported in (2007) 8 SCC 242 in paragraphs 9 and 10 had observed as follows : "9.) The permissibility of reassessment in the absence of statutory provision has been dealt with by this Court in several cases. The first of such cases is Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth1. It was observed in the said case that finality has to be the result of public examination and, in the absence of statutory provision, the court cannot direct reassessment/re-examination of answer scripts. 10.) The courts normally should not direct the production of answer scripts to be inspected by the writ petitioners unless a case is made out to show that either some question has not been evaluated or that the evaluation has been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body. For example, in certain cases examining body can provide model answers to the questions. In such cases the examinees satisfy the court that model answer is different from what has been adopted by the Board. Then only can the court ask for the production of answer scripts to allow inspection of the answer scripts by the examinee. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta2 it was held as follows: (SCC p. 316, paras 16-17) “16.) Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. In Kanpur University v. Samir Gupta2 it was held as follows: (SCC p. 316, paras 16-17) “16.) Shri Kacker, who appears on behalf of the University, contended that no challenge should be allowed to be made to the correctness of a key answer unless, on the face of it, it is wrong. We agree that the key answer should be assumed to be correct unless it is proved to be wrong and that it should not be held to be wrong by an inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation. It must be clearly demonstrated to be wrong, that is to say, it must be such as no reasonable body of men well-versed in the particular subject would regard as correct. The contention of the University is falsified in this case by a large number of acknowledged textbooks, which are commonly read by students in U.P. Those textbooks leave no room for doubt that the answer given by the students is correct and the key answer is incorrect. 17.) Students who have passed their Intermediate Board Examination are eligible to appear for the entrance test for admission to the medical colleges in U.P. Certain books are prescribed for the Intermediate Board Examination and such knowledge of the subjects as the students have is derived from what is contained in those textbooks. Those textbooks support the case of the students fully. If this were a case of doubt, we would have unquestionably preferred the key answer. But if the matter is beyond the realm of doubt, it would be unfair to penalise the students for not giving an answer which accords with the key answer, that is to say, with an answer which is demonstrated to be wrong.” 4. The other contention that the court should appoint a competent valuer also cannot be permitted in the light of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 and in paragraph 20, it was observed as follows : "20.) In view of the above, it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets itself, particularly, when the Commission had assessed the inter se merit of the candidates. If there was a discrepancy in framing the question or evaluation of the answer, it could be for all the candidates appearing for the examination and not for Respondent 1 only. It is a matter of chance that the High Court was examining the answer sheets relating to Law. Had it been other subjects like Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics, we are unable to understand as to whether such a course could have been adopted by the High Court. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court." 5. In view of the above factual matrix of the case and the legal precedents referred to above, there is no case made out by the petitioner. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.