ORDER 1. Shri Tiwari submits that as the respondents are not filing any reply, matter be heard in view of the specific directions issued by this Court on 13.1.2014. 2. Keeping in view the aforesaid, the matter is being heard and orders are being passed after perusal of the records. 3. Petitioner herein was a student who appeared in the Fourth Semester Examination conducted by Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, for B Pharmacy Course. Petitioner appeared in the 4th Semester Examination conducted sometime in April-May, 2013 and according to the petitioner she is a meritorious student and had received very good marks throughout and in two of the papers – Pharmaceutics IV (Pharmaceutical Engineering – II), subject Code – PY401; and Pharmaceutical Analysis – I, subject Code – PY403, in the marksheet allotted to the petitioner, she had received less marks. According to her, in the subject of Pharmaceutics IV, she had referred to a Book by one Shri C.V.S. Subramanium and she had tallied all the answers given by her with the said book, and according to her she had answered most of the questions correctly. Similarly, in the subject of Pharmaceutical Analysis – I, petitioner is said to have referred to a book written by Shri R.M. Verma and according to her she had tallied all the answers with the said book and she feels that she has answered all the questions correctly. Inspite thereof when she had received less marks, she sought for revaluation and when on revaluation nothing was done, she has filed this writ petition. 4. Interalia contending that petitioner had studied the subjects in question from various books and she has answered the questions correctly, but as the answers given by her have not been valued properly and she has been awarded less marks, she has filed this writ petition. Based on the aforesaid averments, petitioner claims that there is an error in valuation of her answer sheets and, therefore, she has approached this Court seeking revaluation of the answer sheets. 5. Merely because the petitioner apprehends that her answer sheets have not been valued properly and merely because petitioner assumes that she has studied the subjects in question from a particular book and that her answers are correct, jurisdiction is not conferred on this Court to direct for revaluation of the answer-sheets. 5. Merely because the petitioner apprehends that her answer sheets have not been valued properly and merely because petitioner assumes that she has studied the subjects in question from a particular book and that her answers are correct, jurisdiction is not conferred on this Court to direct for revaluation of the answer-sheets. Normally an assumption has to be drawn that the Experts who had valued the answer-sheets have discharged their duty properly. Material has to be produced by the petitioner to show before this Court that the valuation has not been properly made. For that petitioner has to get the answer-books from the University under the Right to Information Act and then specifically point out with supporting material that her answers have not been properly valued. Nothing of this sort has been done. Instead, a vague and unspecific allegation is made to say that her answers are not valued properly. 6. Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others, (2011)8 SCC 497 , has laid down the principle that under the Right to Information Act, a candidate is entitled to see his answersheet and thereafter point out error, if any, in the valuation of the answer-sheet. That being so, petitioner should obtain the answer-sheet under the Right to Information Act, thereafter, take up the matter with the University concerned in the matter of pointing out error, if any, in valuation of her answer-sheet and it is only when the University does not take action that indulgence by this Court is called for. 7. Based on the vague and unspecific allegation made in this writ petition on the basis of the assumption and presumption of the petitioner, we see no reason to invoke our jurisdiction particularly when the petitioner under the Right to Information Act has a legal right under law to seek inspection or copies of her answer-sheet and thereafter make out a case for revaluation, based on the actual answers seen by the petitioner and the manner of valuation done by the Board. 8. Accordingly, for the present finding no case for interference, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to proceed in the matter in accordance to the observations made by us hereinabove. 9. Petition stands disposed of with the aforesaid.