Judgment :- 1. This writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing respondents 1 to 3 to recall the results declared on 10.03.2012 in respect of Micro Biology Papers I and II, Pathology Papers I and II for the II MBBS examination sessions held during February, 2011 in respect of the petitioner and to declare the petitioner's result for the said papers based on the evaluation done by the two outsiders who are not connected with the University's evaluation and for the issuance of a fresh comprehensive mark sheet for all papers of Second year MBBS to the petitioner within a reasonable time, so as to enable him to continue the next year course in MBBS without any break and to write the forthcoming examinations for the MBBS final part-I. 2. The petitioner claims to be a Srilankan national and he came to India. He was admitted to do MBBS course at the Madras Medical College for the academic year 1987-1988 under the quota meant for Srilankan Refugee. He was admitted in the college on 23.10.1987. Even after 24 years after he joined the course, he is yet to complete the course. During the stay in India, he was arraigned as an accused in the case known as the Air-Port bomb blast case. He was initially convicted by the Special Court for Bomb Blast cases. Subsequently, on an appeal, he was acquitted by this court. He was permitted to re-join the second year MBBS course by the university vide order dated 18.8.2008. Since the petitioner along with several other students were not allowed to continue the course in view of the regulation brought in fixing maximum duration for completion of the course known as double duration regulation, the petitioner filed W.P.No.1826 of 2011. In that writ petition in M.P.No.2 of 2011, by an order dated 27.1.2011, the petitioner was permitted to attend the II year MBBS examination scheduled to commence on 01.02.1011. It was also made clear that permission was without prejudice to the rights of both parties and that the respondents will not publish the results until further orders from this court. In that writ petition in M.P.No.2 of 2011, by an order dated 27.1.2011, the petitioner was permitted to attend the II year MBBS examination scheduled to commence on 01.02.1011. It was also made clear that permission was without prejudice to the rights of both parties and that the respondents will not publish the results until further orders from this court. The petitioner also got further orders from this court in the same miscellaneous petition on 27.6.2011 and respondents were directed to receive the application form and examination fees for the examination to be held in August, 2011, but it was made subject to the result in the main writ petition. The petitioner thereafter filed an another writ petition being W.P.No.16454 of 2011 seeking for a direction to issue an application form for payment of examination fees for the examination to be held in August, 2011 and also for the subjects which were not cleared by him in the examination held during February, 2011. That writ petition along with an another writ petition was disposed of by a common order dated 12.7.2011 with a direction that the University should issue the application for payment of examination fees with penalty. 3. Pending final disposal of W.P.No.1826 of 2011, a batch of interim applications including that of the petitioner's interim direction application, were disposed of by a common order dated 27.7.2011, in which the University was directed to publish the result of the petitioner for the examination held during February, 2011 and the persons, who either passed or failed, were allowed to write the subsequent examinations to be held in August, 2011. For the very same reasons, in W.P.No.1826 of 2011, the petitioner once again sought for a direction in M.P.Nos.4 and 5 of 2011 seeking for revaluation of his answer sheets, i.e., Microbiology Papers I and II and Pathology Papers I and II and for publication of results of the examination held during February, 2011. In those M.Ps., the petitioner was permitted to peruse the answer sheets in respect of the two subjects and the University was directed to send notice fixing the date and time within 10 days and he was allowed to peruse the answer sheets. 4. The petitioner's main writ petition challenging the regulation, i.e. W.P.No.1826 of 2011 was disposed of along with two other writ petitions on 29.11.2011. 4. The petitioner's main writ petition challenging the regulation, i.e. W.P.No.1826 of 2011 was disposed of along with two other writ petitions on 29.11.2011. As per the scheme since amnesty was given even for persons who completed the double duration, those writ petitions were disposed of. In paragraph 5, this court had observed as follows : "5.) In view of the said scheme, nothing survives in the writ petition for adjudication, as the earlier regulation aggrieved over which, the writ petitions have been filed is no longer in force as on today. Therefore, the petitioners can work out their remedy under the scheme by approaching the second respondent through the first respondent as per the procedure contemplated under the scheme. So far as the writ petition filed in W.PNo.1926 of 2011 is concerned, it is always well open to the petitioner to approach the respondents, in case of any future difficulty, as the petitioner's case is slightly on a different putting being a Srilankan citizen. The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly....."(Emphasis added) 5. Thereafter, the petitioner had filed yet another writ petition being W.P.No.1158 of 2012 seeking for a direction to the respondents to furnish photocopies of the answer sheets of papers relating to Microbiology and Pathology for the examinations held during February, 2011 and to appoint an independent experienced examiner as per the Medical Council of India rules to re-evaluate his answer papers and to issue a fresh marks. The said writ petition along with similarly placed writ petitions came to be dealt with by a division bench presided by M.Y.Eqbal, C.J. In the common order, dated 27.01.2012, the division bench had directed as follows : "In these writ petitions, directions have been sought for issuance of photocopies of the answer sheets. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents fairly submitted that so far these writ petitions are concerned, photocopies of the answer sheets shall be supplied to the writ petitioners by tomorrow i.e., 28.01.2012. 2.) In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to go over to the office of the Controller of Examinations-second respondent to collect the photocopies of the answer sheets. 2.) In view of the above, the petitioners are directed to go over to the office of the Controller of Examinations-second respondent to collect the photocopies of the answer sheets. 3.) So far the prayer for re-evaluation of the answer sheets is concerned, if there are Rules, Regulations or Scheme under the University Act, the writ petitioners may seek for re-evaluation of the answer sheets in accordance with the said Rules, Regulations or Scheme under the University Act. 4.) With these directions, the writ petitions are disposed of....."(Emphasis added) 6. It is not clear as to how the petitioner filed the second writ petition when he had already got a similar direction in the earlier round of litigation. But, however as the division bench had rightly observed that if there are rules, regulations or scheme under the University Act only, the petitioner can seek for re-evaluation. Notwithstanding the order passed by the division bench, the petitioner once again came before this court with an another writ petition in W.P.No.3323 of 2012 seeking for a direction to reevaluate the answer scripts in respect of Microbiology papers I and II and Pathology papers I and II for the examinations held during February, 2011 as per the MCI rules. The prayer made in the said writ petition was identical to that of the prayer in the writ petition dealt with by the division bench. Notwithstanding the fact that the said prayer was not granted by the division bench, the petitioner kept on filing writ petitions. W.P.No.3323 of 2012 was disposed of by an order dated 22.02.2012 and in paragraph 10, it was directed as follows : "10....without going into the merits of the case, I am inclined to direct the petitioner to approach the University by making a detailed representation with the answer sheets and the discrepancies and defects as found by him, along with the copies of the order passed in favour of Sangeetha and one Pugazhendi, to enable them to consider the same and pass appropriate orders. On such representation being made, the respondent University shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with their rules, regulations and scheme within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as the petitioner is reported to be loosing his academic career."(Emphasis added) 7. On such representation being made, the respondent University shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders on merits and in accordance with their rules, regulations and scheme within a period of seven days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order as the petitioner is reported to be loosing his academic career."(Emphasis added) 7. Armed with the said direction, the petitioner once again sought for the relief to reevaluate his answer papers. The petitioner also invoked the assistance of another person seeking for several information under the Right to Information Act, including irrelevant informations regarding fees paid to the standing counsel and the counsel fees paid and also particulars regarding the senior counsel who had appeared in the matter. The questions sought for through a benami of the petitioner and the answers received were also filed in the typed set. Perhaps the petitioner had taken such a recourse because under the RTI Act, the foreigner is precluded from seeking any such information in terms of Section 3 of the Act. Though the very same petitioner earlier claimed information under the RTI Act, subsequently he had become careful in seeking such an information which are useful to him and got the information by an alleged journalist by name B.Choodamani. It was after getting the copies of the answer books for those examinations and evaluating them by the two outsiders describing them as the Professor of Pathology and Professor of Microbiology, who are working in certain outside agencies and on the basis of the evaluation done by those outsiders on voluntary basis, the present writ petition came to be filed seeking for re-evaluation of his answer sheets based on the evaluation done by those two outsiders and for issuance of mark sheet accordingly. 8. In the counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondents 1 to 3 and 9, dated 28.6.2012, it was stated that the petitioner was admitted in the MBBS course during the academic year 1987-88. He had appeared for the I year and II year MBBS examinations in the following years : FIRST MBBSPART-IPART-II May'96 Absent / Fail Nov'96 AbsentNov.96 Detained April'97 AbsentApril'97 Detained Dec'97 DetainedDec'97 Detained April'98 Fail Nov'98 FailNov'98 Fail Dec'99 FailDec'99 Fail April 2000 PassApril 2000 Pass SECOND MBBSPART-IPART-II Dec'01 Fail / AbsentDec'01 Absent April'02 FailApril'02 Fail Dec'02 FailDec'02 Fail Aug'04 Fail /AbsentAug'04 Fail Feb'05 AbsentFeb'05 Absent August'10 Fail 9. The break of studies of the petitioner was condoned from time to time between 1987 and till August, 2010. But as per the resolution, dated 22.12.2010 by the Standing Academic Board of the University, as he had not completed the course within the double duration, he was discharged from the course on 27.7.2010. This was challenged before this court in W.P.No.1826 of 2011, wherein he got several interim orders. Finally, by an order dated 27.7.2011 in that writ petition, the University was forced to publish the results of the petitioner on 28.7.2011. The petitioner had failed in both Microbiology and Pathology papers. The papers were valued by four examiners who were all in the cadre of Professor and have enough experience to correct the answer scripts. All the examiners have more than 5 years of teaching experience. The marks were awarded on the basis of the answers given by the petitioner. There was no omission or commission in the answer scripts of the petitioner. Therefore, there cannot be any revaluation. The petitioner had approached the university for issuance of photocopies of answer scripts. But as per the regulations of the university, only retotalling was permitted. At that time, there was no provision to furnish the copies of answer script. As per the direction issued by this court, the petitioner was permitted to peruse his answer sheets. The petitioner filed W.P.No.1158 of 2012 seeking to furnish the copies of answer scripts as well as for revaluation. However, based upon the subsequent pronouncement of the Supreme Court, the Standing Academic Board of the University had passed a resolution on 19.12.2011 to furnish the photocopies of the answer scripts if such information was sought under the RTI Act. Accordingly, the answer scripts were furnished to the petitioner. The petitioner's seeking for evaluation of his papers, which were already valued by the university, by two outsiders, will not enable him to seek for evaluation of papers all over again. 10. In the case of one Pugazenthi, the university had found that the examiner who had evaluated the answer script has left to award mark for two essay answers. Hence the university had informed the concerned examiner to award marks for the said answer. Accordingly, the examiner came to the university and granted marks for the said Pugazenthi. There was no revaluation was done in the case of Pugazenthi and only a correction. Hence the university had informed the concerned examiner to award marks for the said answer. Accordingly, the examiner came to the university and granted marks for the said Pugazenthi. There was no revaluation was done in the case of Pugazenthi and only a correction. In the case of Sangeetha, the evaluator had failed to follow the instructions given in the answer script and put a dash instead of awarding "0" marks. Therefore, a direction was given in the case of the said Sangeetha. In the case of the petitioner, the petitioner's failed papers were once again evaluated by the university. It was found that he had failed in two subjects. He had scored only 43 marks as against 48 marks in microbiology paper and had secured 46 marks as against 48 marks in Pathology paper. There was no vindictiveness or discrimination against the petitioner. The regulation of the MCI regarding grant of grace marks will apply only if a candidate failed in one subject and passed in other subjects. Whereas the petitioner had failed in two papers in the examinations held during February, 2011. The University cannot be compelled to grant any grace mark for any failed student. 11. In fact, the action of the university in refusing to reevaluate in the absence of any rules was upheld by this court in a writ petition filed by one P.Archana Meenakshi in W.P.No.12021 of 2012. The petitioner who filed the writ petition for similar purpose in W.P.No.8197 of 2012 withdrew the writ petition without any liberty to seek for any revaluation. Hence the present writ petition is liable to be rejected on that short ground. It was also stated that the petitioner having joined the course in the year 1987, which was only for a period of 5-1/2 years, is yet to complete the course even after 25 years. The University is not bound by the opinion tendered by some outsiders who were not appointed by the university as examiners and the opinion obtained by the petitioner has no value in the eye of law. 12. It is in this context, it has to be seen whether the petitioner has made out any case for the grant of the prayer sought for? 13. 12. It is in this context, it has to be seen whether the petitioner has made out any case for the grant of the prayer sought for? 13. Though the petitioner had filed W.P.No.8197 of 2012, he had not chosen to refer the same either in the affidavit filed in support of the writ petition or in the elaborate typed set filed by him. This omission cannot be said to be innocuous. Even in the earlier round of litigation, the petitioner sought for reevaluation of his papers. All that this court did was only when rules provided, there can be revaluation and not dehors the rules. Having got such an order by the division bench in W.P.No.1158 of 2012, the petitioner without any justification moved another writ petition for the very same prayer seeking similar relief in W.P.No.3323 of 2012 seeking that his case should be considered on par with one Sangeetha and Pugazhendi. The respondents have considered the same and rejected the petitioner's case. The respondents also explained to this court that the cases of M/s.Sangeetha and Pugazhendi stood on different footing and that the petitioner is not entitled for the grant of any relief sought for by him. 14. Mr.P.Wilson, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioner elaborately argued and also referred to certain decisions. He contended that if answers given by the candidate is correct, but the key answer was wrong, the candidate will be entitled to get full marks. He referred to the decision of the Supreme Court in Abhijit Sen v. State of U.P., reported in (1984) 2 SCC 319 . It is not clear as to how the said judgment will have any relevance to the case on hand. Whereas the petitioner is seeking for complete revaluation on the basis of the opinion voluntarily obtained by him from two outsiders. 15. The learned Senior Counsel further relied upon a decision of the Supreme Court in State of Orissa v. Prajnaparamita Samanta reported in (1996) 7 SCC 106 and in paragraph 3 it was observed as follows : "3.) Subsequently, by our order dated 30-9-1993, we directed the experts of the Delhi University in the subjects of Chemistry, Botany and Zoology to give their opinion with regard to six of the seven key answers and the stand of the students in respect of the said answers which found favour with the High Court. The experts were to indicate whether (a) the key answers or the answers which according to the students were correct, were most appropriately the correct answers, and (b) whether both or either were wholly incorrect and if so which of them. We have since received the report of the experts. From the said report, it is found that four of the answers which according to the students were correct have been certified as such by the experts whereas two of the key answers given by the Board were found to be correct. We had undertaken this exercise only to satisfy ourselves as to whether there was truth in the grievance of the students or in the stand taken by the Board that the key answers provided by them were the most correct answers. We are satisfied on the basis of the opinion of the experts that there was much to be said in favour of the stand of the students. It may be mentioned here that we had sent only six answers for examination to the experts out of the seven as indicated in the earlier order, because we had found that the answer to the seventh question canvassed by the students was so obviously correct that it needed no examination at the hands of the experts. The report of the experts also validates the order of the High Court which had directed re-evaluation of the answer books of the examinees on the basis of the answers suggested by it to the nine questions. In the circumstances, taking a broad view of the entire matter, we are satisfied that it cannot be said that the impugned judgment of the High Court suffered from any infirmity. We, therefore, find no merit in the grievance of the State and dismiss the State's appeals being CA Nos. 732 and 745-54 of 1993." On that basis, he contended that it is not as if the court cannot appoint experts to decide the correctness of the answers given by the examinees. The said judgment has no relevance to the case on hand. In this case, we are not examining the key answers supplied by the university. 16. 732 and 745-54 of 1993." On that basis, he contended that it is not as if the court cannot appoint experts to decide the correctness of the answers given by the examinees. The said judgment has no relevance to the case on hand. In this case, we are not examining the key answers supplied by the university. 16. The learned Senior counsel further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Saumil Garg reported in (2005) 13 SCC 749 for contending that the court can direct the university to reevaluate the answers. But in that case, it was found that 21 key answers provided by the university were found to be incorrect. When the court directed the CBSE to give a report, the CBSE had opined that 10 out of 21 key answers were incorrect. It is in that context, the Supreme Court held that merit should not be the casuality and the paramount interest of students should be considered. Hence the university was directed to reevaluate the papers with reference to key answers provided by the CBSE and the Delhi University. Even this judgment do not help the case of the petitioner. 17. The learned Senior Counsel thereafter referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Manish Ujwal v. Maharishi Dayanand Saraswati University reported in (2005) 13 SCC 744 to contend that the student should not suffer on account of an error committed by the academic authorities. But the petitioner was not able to point out any error was committed except based his claim on the two outsiders had opined the answers required more marks. This opinion is not binding and that the University itself has got the papers evaluated and found the petitioner's case do not improve even after second evaluation. 18. Per contra, Mrs.Narmadha Sampath, learned counsel for the University referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Maharashtra State Board of S.H.S.E. v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth reported in (1984) 4 SCC 27 and contended that in the absence of any provision for reevaluation, no question of the court directing any revaluation would arise and referred to paragraphs 27 to 29 of the said judgment which reads as follows: "27.) The High Court has relied upon the fact that the University of Bombay and some other Universities have recently made provisions permitting candidates to demand revaluation. In our opinion, this has little relevance for the purpose of deciding about the legal validity of the impugned regulations framed by the Board. We do not know under what circumstances, the University of Bombay has decided to recognise a right in the examinees to demand a revaluation. As far as the Board is concerned it has set out in the counter-affidavit the enormity of the task with which it is already faced, namely, of completing twice during each year the process of evaluation and release of results of some 3 lakhs of candidates appearing for the SSC and HSC examinations to be held in an interval of only a few months from one another. If the candidates are all to be given inspection of their answer books or the revaluation of the answer papers is to be done in the presence of the candidates, the process is bound to be extremely time consuming and if such a request is made by even about ten per cent of the candidates who will be 30,000 in number, it would involve several thousands of man hours and is bound to throw the entire system out of gear. Further, it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking, etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. 28.) As pointed out by a Constitution Bench of this Court in Fatehchand Himmatlal v. State of Maharashtra ‘the test of reasonableness is not applied in vacuum but in the context of life's realities’. If the principle laid down by the High Court is to be regarded as correct, its applicability cannot be restricted to examinations conducted by School Education Boards alone but would extend even to all competitive examinations conducted by the Union and State Public Service Commissions. If the principle laid down by the High Court is to be regarded as correct, its applicability cannot be restricted to examinations conducted by School Education Boards alone but would extend even to all competitive examinations conducted by the Union and State Public Service Commissions. The resultant legal position emerging from the High Court judgment is that every candidate who has appeared for any such examination and who is dissatisfied with his results would, as an inherent part of his right to fair play be entitled to demand a disclosure and personal inspection of his answer scripts and would have a further right to ask for revaluation of his answer papers. The inevitable consequence would be that there will be no certainty at all regarding the results of the competitive examination for an indefinite period of time until all such requests have been complied with and the results of the verification and revaluation have been brought into account. 29.) Far from advancing public interest and fair play to the other candidates in general, any such interpretation of the legal position would be wholly defeasive of the same. As has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court, 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 the 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. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case." 19. It is unfortunate that this principle has not been adequately kept in mind by the High Court while deciding the instant case." 19. The learned counsel further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda reported in (2004) 13 SCC 383 for contending that in the absence of any rule, the court cannot give any direction for reevaluation of answer sheet and referred to the following passage found in paragraph 6 which reads as follows : "6.) The High Court though observed that the writ petitioner who has taken the examination is hardly a competent person to assess his own merit and on that basis claim for re-evaluation of papers, but issued the aforesaid direction in order to eliminate the possibility of injustice on account of marginal variation in marks. It is an admitted position that the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa do not make any provision for re-evaluation of answer-books of the students. The question whether in absence of any provision to that effect an examinee is entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer-books has been examined by us in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission2 decided on 6-8-2004. It has been held therein that in absence of rules providing for re-evaluation of answer-books, no such direction can be issued. It has been further held that in absence of clear rules on the subject, a direction for re-evaluation of the answer-books may throw many problems and in the larger public interest such a direction must be avoided. We are, therefore, of the opinion that the impugned order of the High Court directing for re-evaluation of the answer-books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks is clearly unsustainable in law and must be set aside." 20. She further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur reported in (2010) 6 SCC 759 for contending that the court cannot take upon the task of the statutory authorities and referred to the following passage found in paragraphs 16 to 20 which reads as follows : "16.) It is a settled legal proposition that the court cannot take upon itself the task of the statutory authorities. 17.) In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. Dr. 17.) In Hindustan Shipyard Ltd. v. Dr. P. Sambasiva Rao1 this Court held that in a case where the relief of regularisation is sought by the employees working for a long time on ad hoc basis, it is not desirable for the Court to issue direction for regularisation straightaway. The proper relief in such cases is the issuance of direction to the authority concerned to constitute a Selection Committee to consider the matter of regularisation of the ad hoc employees as per the Rules for regular appointment for the reason that the regularisation is not automatic, it depends on availability of number of vacancies, suitability and eligibility of the ad hoc appointee and particularly as to whether the ad hoc appointee had the eligibility for appointment on the date of initial appointment as ad hoc and while considering the case of regularisation, the Rules have to be strictly adhered to as dispensing with the Rules is totally impermissible in law. In certain cases, even the consultation with the Public Service Commission may be required, therefore, such a direction cannot be issued. 18.) In Govt. of Orissa v. Hanichal Roy this Court considered the case wherein the High Court had granted relaxation of service conditions. This Court held that the High Court could not take upon itself the task of the statutory authority. The only order which the High Court could have passed was to direct the Government to consider his case for relaxation forming an opinion in view of the statutory provisions as to whether the relaxation was required in the facts and circumstances of the case. Issuing such a direction by the Court was illegal and impermissible. Similar view has been reiterated by this Court in LIC v. Asha Ramchhandra Ambekar and A. Umarani v. Coop. Societies. 19.) In G. Veerappa Pillai v. Raman and Raman Ltd.5 the Constitution Bench of this Court while considering the case for grant of permits under the provisions of the Motor Vehicles Act, 1939, held that the High Court ought to have quashed the proceedings of the Transport Authority, but issuing the direction for grant of permits was clearly in excess of its powers and jurisdiction. 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. 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." (Emphasis added) 21. The learned counsel further relied upon a judgment of the Supreme Court in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. D. Suvankar reported in (2007) 1 SCC 603 for contending that the court's interference with the decision of the expert is very limited and such power can be exercised only on compelling reasons and apparent infirmity in evaluation. In paragraph 8 of the judgment, the Supreme Court had observed as follows: 8.) It has to be ensured that the examiners who make the evaluation of answer papers are really equipped for the job. The paramount consideration in such cases is the ability of the examiner. The Board has bounden duty to select such persons as examiners who have the capacity, capability to make evaluation and they should really be equipped for the job. Otherwise, the very purpose of evaluation of answer papers would be frustrated. Nothing should be left to show even an apprehension about lack of fair assessment. It is true that evaluation of two persons cannot be equal on golden scales, but wide variation would affect credibility of the system of evaluation. If for the same answer one candidate gets higher marks than another that would be arbitrary. As indicated above, the scope for interference in matters of evaluation of answer papers is very limited. For compelling reasons and apparent infirmity in evaluation, the court step in. Care should be taken to see that the examiners who have been appointed for a particular subject belong to the same faculty. As indicated above, the scope for interference in matters of evaluation of answer papers is very limited. For compelling reasons and apparent infirmity in evaluation, the court step in. Care should be taken to see that the examiners who have been appointed for a particular subject belong to the same faculty. It would be a mockery of the system of evaluation if a teacher belonging to Arts stream is asked to evaluate answer papers of Science stream. It may be that a teacher had Physics, Chemistry or Biology at the intermediate level, but at graduation stage he had special paper in Zoology. To ask such a teacher to evaluate Botany paper would not be proper. Similarly in the case of a teacher having Mathematics at intermediate level while he took his higher studies in Physics, or Chemistry, or Botany at the graduation level, evaluation of answer paper of Mathematics by him would not be proper. May be that he has working knowledge of the subject. But the evaluation should be done by an examiner who is well equipped in the subject. That would rule out the chance of variation or improper evaluation. Board authorities should ensure that anomalous situations as pointed out above do not occur. Additional steps should be taken for assessing the capacity of a teacher before he is appointed as an examiner. For this purpose, the Board may constitute a body of experts to interview the persons who intend to be appointed as examiners. This process is certainly time-consuming but it would further the ends for which the examinations are held. The Chief Examiner is supposed to act as a safety valve in the matter of proper assessment." 22. Further reference was made to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Secy., W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das reported in (2007) 8 SCC 242 for contending that examinee's prayer should not normally be allowed by the court unless there was non evaluation of any question or evaluation was done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body. In paragraphs 10 and 11, the Supreme Court had observed as follows : "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. 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. 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.” 11.) Same would be a rarity and it can only be done in exceptional cases. The principles set out in Maharashtra Board case1 has been followed subsequently in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission3, Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda4 and President, Board of Secondary Education v. D. Suvankar5." 23. The learned counsel for the university further referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in All India Council For Technical Education v. Surinder Kumar Dhawan reported in (2009) 11 SCC 726 for contending that the benefit given to others cannot be a ground for the petitioner seeking the benefit in his case and referred to paragraph 27 of the said judgment which reads as follows : "27.) Therefore, the fact that the earlier directions of the High Court to permit the bridge course for diploma-holders from the Institute had been complied with, and that those decisions attained finality will not come in the way of AICTE challenge to any subsequent decision relating to other similarly placed candidates/students. It cannot however take away the benefit extended to the petitioners in those cases, where the decision had attained finality, on the ground that subsequently the court has taken a different view." However this is without prejudice to her contention that the cases of Sangeetha and Pugazendhi were based on entirely different set of facts. 24. Lastly, she referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 for contending that the court should not sit in the judgment over the opinion of experts. The professors appointed by the university are expert in the field and their opinion need not be doubted. 24. Lastly, she referred to a judgment of the Supreme Court in Basavaiah v. Dr. H.L. Ramesh reported in (2010) 8 SCC 372 for contending that the court should not sit in the judgment over the opinion of experts. The professors appointed by the university are expert in the field and their opinion need not be doubted. She referred to the following passage found in paragraph 38 which reads as follows : "38.) We have dealt with the aforesaid judgments to reiterate and reaffirm the legal position that in the academic matters, the courts have a very limited role particularly when no mala fides have been alleged against the experts constituting the Selection Committee. It would normally be prudent, wholesome and safe for the courts to leave the decisions to the academicians and experts. As a matter of principle, the courts should never make an endeavour to sit in appeal over the decisions of the experts. The courts must realise and appreciate its constraints and limitations in academic matters." 25. In the light of the above contentions, the petitioner's writ petition is liable to be rejected for more than one reason. The petitioner has been filing writ petition after writ petition for identical relief. In one such case, he did not even mention the withdrawal of the earlier writ petition on knowing that the case of one P.Archana Meenakshi was rejected. The fact that the said writ petition was not even referred to is a good ground for dismissing the writ petition for suppressing a vital information from being disclosed. Even otherwise in the previous writ petition, though similar reliefs were claimed, the petitioner had only the benefit of perusal of his answer scripts. In respect of the second portion of reevaluation, the court had strictly refused to grant the relief by stating that it depends upon the rule position of the university. Therefore, the petitioner cannot once again come forward with the same relief by referring to the case of others. Even such a direction was obtained contrary to the earlier order obtained by him. 26. In any event, the respondent university has clearly explained that the petitioner's papers have been clearly evaluated by the competent persons and there are no infirmity. The question of going by some outsiders' opinion does not arise in the case on hand. Even such a direction was obtained contrary to the earlier order obtained by him. 26. In any event, the respondent university has clearly explained that the petitioner's papers have been clearly evaluated by the competent persons and there are no infirmity. The question of going by some outsiders' opinion does not arise in the case on hand. Therefore, in the absence of any legal and enforceable right on the part of the petitioner and there being no legal obligation on the part of the university to evaluate the paper once again, the writ petition is misconceived. Accordingly, the writ petition will stand dismissed. However, there will be no order as to costs.