ORDER 1. As common questions of law and facts are involved in all these cases, they are being disposed of by this common order. For the sake of convenience, the pleadings and documents available in W.P.No.18207/2012 are being referred to. 2. Petitioners in each of these cases were students who had appeared in the M.Ed examination conducted in May-June 2011. They appeared from the College of respondent No.2 and the examination was conducted by respondent No.1 Devi Ahilya Vishwavidyalaya, Indore. In each of the cases, the grievance of the petitioners are that when the results were declared they found that they have received less marks as are indicated by them in the petition. They, therefore, sought for revaluation of the answer book. When the amended mark sheet was issued and no change was indicated, they have filed this petition. The relief claimed are that their answer book be revalued and results declared afresh. 3. During the course of hearing learned counsel pointed out that the revaluation has not been done properly and even though they have answered the questions correctly, they have not been awarded proper marks. In support of the aforesaid contention, neither any Ordinance, Rules or Regulations of the University is filed which permits revaluation of the answer sheets nor is any reason given as to why the petitioners say that answer sheet are not found valued properly. Except for filing the question paper of the subject in question, in none of the petition the petitioners have given any details with regard to the manner in which they solved the questions, the book from which they studied, what was the answer given and how they say that they have given the correct answer are not spelt out by any of the petitioner. Simply by filing the question paper and by making a vague and unspecific allegations it is only said that their answer sheets have not been valued properly, and on such ground indulgence into the matter by this Court is sought for. 4. For the purpose of getting revaluation of the answer sheets petitioners should have brought to the notice of this Court, the Statutory ordinance, Rules and regulations which permits revaluation of answer sheet. This having not done, this Court cannot issue any Mandamus in the matter of revaluation. 4. For the purpose of getting revaluation of the answer sheets petitioners should have brought to the notice of this Court, the Statutory ordinance, Rules and regulations which permits revaluation of answer sheet. This having not done, this Court cannot issue any Mandamus in the matter of revaluation. As far as calling for the answer books or rechecking or revalue the same are concerned, merely on the basis of vague allegations with regard to petitioners having answered all the questions properly, no such direction can be issued. Petitioners should have given specific reasons as to why they feel that their answer sheets have not been valued properly and what is the reason they make such a contention with regard to improper valuation. Merely on the basis of vague allegations, the assumptions and presumptions of the petitioners, no direction can be issued for revaluation of the answer sheet. That apart, petitioners have a right to get the answer book received under the Right to Information Act in the light of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Central Board of Secondary Education & another v. Aditya Bandopadhyay and others - (2011) 8 SCC 497 , thereafter point out to the authorities concerned the discripencies or error, if any in the valuation and then seek relief. On the basis of vague allegations on the basis of presumptions and assumptions and by following a method of trial and error no indulgence can be made by this Court in these petitions. 5. Accordingly, we find no reason to issue any mandamus in these cases for the present. Instead if the petitioners feel that under the statutory provisions they have a right to get the answer revalued or that revaluation or original valuation of answer sheet has not been done in accordance to requirement of law, they may represent to the Vice Chancellor of the University pointing out the same and it would be for the Vice Chancellor of the University to take action in accordance with law. 6. 6. That apart, if the petitioners feel that their answer sheets have not been valued properly, they may obtain the answer sheets in the light of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the case of Aditya Bandopadhyaya (supra) and thereafter point out the error or discripencies in the valuation to the competent authority of the University and it would be for the competent authority to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 7. With the aforesaid, for the present finding no case for any further indulgence, all these petitions are disposed of.