JUDGMENT :- R. BANUMATHI, J. & T.S. SIVAGNANAM, J. 1. The writ petitioner is the appellant in both the appeals. W.A.No.1505 of 2013 is directed against the order dated 26.04.2013 in W.P.No.12389 of 2013 and W.A.No.1472 of 2013 is directed against the order dated 03.07.2013 in W.P.No.16268 of 2013. 2. The prayer sought for in both the writ petitions are almost identical in which the appellant prayed for a direction upon the second respondent to award one mark to the appellant for question No.14 of Section "A" of A type +2 Biology question paper under Part I (Bio-Botany) and consider option A as correct answer as per the representation of the appellant dated 02.05.2013 and in W.P.No.12389 of 2013, the appellant prayed for award of full marks to question Nos. 14 & 35 in the +2 Biology paper. 3. W.P.No.12389 of 2013 was dismissed holding that in such academic matters, it is for the academicians to take note of the grievance and this Court cannot take up the role to direct the authorities to grant marks and it was held that it is open to the appellant to approach the authorities. Thereupon, the appellant is said to have submitted a representation and filed the second writ petition in W.P.No.16268 of 2013, for virtually an identical prayer. The said writ petition was dismissed by order dated 03.07.2013, by placing reliance on the decision of the Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.12925 of 2013, dated 12.06.2013, in which an identical question was considered and negatived. Therefore, the appellant initially filed W.A.No.1472 of 2013, against the order dated 03.07.2013, in W.P.No.16268 of 2013, and filed the another appeal along with an application for condonation of delay which was condoned by this Court and the appeal has been registered as W.A.No.1505 of 2013. 4. We have heard the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant and learned Special Government Pleader for the respondents. 5. The grievance of the appellant is that on account of a wrong answer given to a multiple choice question, the appellant was not in a position to indicate the correct answer and therefore, he should be awarded full mark to the said question. In fact, it appears that in one of the choices given in the said question, there was a spelling mistake. 6. In fact, it appears that in one of the choices given in the said question, there was a spelling mistake. 6. The learned Single Judge, while dismissing the writ petition took note of an order passed by the Division Bench in W.P.No.12925 of 2013, dated 12.06.2013. The said writ petition though designed as a public interest litigation was filed by a parent of a student, similarly placed as that of the appellant herein. Identical grounds were canvassed before the Division Bench, which was considered and rejected. Therefore, the learned Single Judge was perfectly right in observing that in view of the Division Bench decision, it is not proper for a Single Judge to consider the very same issue once over again. 7. In W.A.No.1505 of 2013, similar contention was canvassed by the learned counsel for the appellant. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition, in our view rightly, holding that in academic matters of this nature, Court cannot take up the role to grant grace marks. 8. In H.P. Public Service Commission vs. Mukesh Thakur [2010-5 MLJ-746 (SC)] one of the questions, which fell for consideration is as to whether, it is permissible for the Court to take the task of examiner /selection board upon itself and examine discrepancies and inconsistencies in the question paper and valuation thereof. The Hon'ble Supreme Court after referring to the earlier decisions held that it is not permissible for the High Court to examine the question paper and answer sheets itself and such course was not permissible to the High Court. The operative portion of the judgment reads as follows:- 19. 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. 20. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court. 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. 20. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that such a course was not permissible to the High Court. 9. In the light of the above discussion, we find no grounds to interfere with the orders passed, dismissing the writ petitions. Accordingly, the writ appeals fail and they are dismissed. No costs. Consequently, connected miscellaneous petitions are closed.