JUDGMENT None appears on behalf of the respondent nos. 1, 2, 3 and 4 in spite of service of copies of the writ application upon them. Mr. Ranajit Chatterjee, learned Advocate who used to appear in other cases on behalf of the above respondents, is directed to appear in this matter. Let it be recorded that copy of the writ application has been served upon him in court today. This writ application is filed by the petitioner assailing the decision making process of the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education in respect of marks awarded to the petitioner in Mathematics in the Higher Secondary Examination held in 2013. Since the petitioner was not satisfied with the marks awarded to him in the above examination. He filed an application for post publication review of his above answer script. The above answer script of the petitioner was scrutinized treating his application as an application for post publication scrutiny. Hence he moved this writ application. It is submitted by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner the prayer relating to the challenge of vires of the provisions of West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Examination Rules, 2006 is not pressed. It is submitted by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that the decision making process of the respondent-Council in awarding marks in Mathematics in respect of Higher Secondary Examination, 2013 cannot be sustained in law on the following grounds: i) No marks were awarded in respect of question nos. It is submitted by the learned Advocate on behalf of the petitioner that the decision making process of the respondent-Council in awarding marks in Mathematics in respect of Higher Secondary Examination, 2013 cannot be sustained in law on the following grounds: i) No marks were awarded in respect of question nos. 4 d (i) [at page 101 of this writ application] and 4 h (i) [at page 107 of this writ application]; ii) Awarding of lessor marks in the light of the model answer in respect of questions 2 b (ii) [at page 68 of this writ application], 2 e (ii) [at page 72 of this writ application], 3 c (i) [at page 81 of this writ application], 3 c (iii) [at page 82 of this writ application, 3 d (ii) [at page 86 of this writ application], 3 e (vii) [at page 90 of this writ application], 3 e (vi) [at page 92 of this writ application], 3 e (iii) [at page 94 of this writ application], 3 e (iv) [at page 95 of this writ application], 4 b (i) [at page 97 of this writ application], 4 d (ii) [at page 102 of this writ application] It is the settled proposition of law that an examiner must assess the answer given by the examinee awarding marks in respect of all answers taking into account the allotment of marks for those questions. Reference may be made to the decision of Olivia Mukherjee Vs. Vidyasagar University reported in 2011 (1) CHN (Cal) 2287. Relevant portions of the decision are quoted below: “6. It is true, that a Court sitting in writ jurisdiction should not embark upon the wisdom of a paper setter in allotting marks in respect of different questions of a question paper. Similarly, that Court cannot re-examine the assessment of merit of an examinee done by an examiner. But an examiner is under obligation to apply his mind on the answers given buy an examinee as also to award separate marks in respect of all the answers taking into consideration the allotment of marks in respect of those questions. Necessary to point out that if any of those answers does not deserve even one marks then zero should be awarded as an indication of assessment of merit of the examinee concern in respect of his/her answer. Necessary to point out that if any of those answers does not deserve even one marks then zero should be awarded as an indication of assessment of merit of the examinee concern in respect of his/her answer. If an examiner fails to observe this procedure then the decision-making process suffers from procedural impropriety and it is open for a Writ Court to interfere with the same in course of judicial review on the basis of well-settled principles. Reference may be made to the decision of the State of U.P. vs. Dharmander Prasad Singh, reported in AIR 1989 SC 997 and the relevant portions of the above decision are quoted below : “28. When the issue raised in judicial review is whether a decision is vitiated by taking into account irrelevant, or neglecting to take into account of relevant factors or is so manifestly unreasonable that no reasonable authority, entrusted with the power in question could reasonably have made such a decision, the judicial review of the decision-making process includes examination, as a matter of law, of the relevance of the factors.” 7. In the light of the above settled principles of law, while examining the decision-making process, I find that in the question paper under reference, the paper setter allotted two separate marks in respect of two parts of question number 7. Similarly, the paper setter allotted three different marks in respect of three parts of question No.8. After going through the said answer script I find some underlines in respect of some portions of the answers given by the petitioner in respect of the above questions. But indisputably, one marks was awarded against a part of question No.7 in the said answer script. No marks was awarded in respect of the answer of second part of the above question in spite of allotment of separate marks for the same in the question paper. Indisputably, no marks was awarded in respect of answers of the said answer script in respect of answers of question No.8(a), 8(b) and 8(c). No marks was awarded in respect of the answer of second part of the above question in spite of allotment of separate marks for the same in the question paper. Indisputably, no marks was awarded in respect of answers of the said answer script in respect of answers of question No.8(a), 8(b) and 8(c). Admittedly, the marks awarded in respect of answer for question No.8(c) was cancelled without putting any signature.” Recently the scope of entertaining the challenge thrown with regard to the action of the respondent-authority in respect of assessment of answer script was taken up by a Division Bench of this High Court in the matter of West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Madhurima Mukherjee & Ors. (M.A.T. No. 2653 of 2007). By virtue of a judgment dated February 19, 2014 delivered in the matter it has been held that there is hardly any scope of interfering in the matter of reassessment of answer script in the light of the settled principles of law. But in theevent, the allegation relates of examination of answer scripts inarbitrary, defective or partial manner, it comes within the purview of “exceptional cases” to permit any relief in the matter of inspection/reevaluation of such answer scripts. The relevant portions of the above decision are set out herein below: “Let us examine the factual matrix of the case in the light of the law as analyzed in the aforesaid decisions of the Supreme Court. Admittedly, there is no provision permitting reevaluation/review of answer scripts. It was the onus of the respondent/writ petitioner to show that the answer scripts were examined in an arbitrary, defective or partial manner so as to fall within the species of “exceptional cases” to permit any relief in the matter of inspection/reevaluation of answer scripts. Even the provisions of Right to Information Act do no enable an examinee to seek reevaluation of answer scripts, although inspection of the same may be availed of subject to the exception contained in section 8 of the said Act.” After considering the factual matrix of this case as discussed above I find that an exceptional case in the light of the judgment of West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Madhurima Mukherjee & Ors. is made out by the petitioner.xIn view of the above judgment, I direct the respondent no. Vs. Madhurima Mukherjee & Ors. is made out by the petitioner.xIn view of the above judgment, I direct the respondent no. 1 to consider the above grievance of the petitioner by deputing an examiner other than the examiner who had examined the answer script of the petitioner and to communicate his decision to the petitioner within thirty days from the date of communication of this Order. Since no affidavit-in-opposition is filed on behalf of the respondent, the allegations made against them in this writ application are to be treated as denied by them. This writ application is disposed of. There will be, however, no order as to costs.