Manojit Bhuyan, J.:-- Heard Mr. R. Sarma, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel representing the respondents. 2. As a student of Brook field School, North Lakhimpur the petitioner had appeared in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination of 2014 under the Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA). She is basically aggrieved of the marks awarded to her in two subjects, namely, Social Science and Advance Mathematics. She secured 70 marks in Social Science and 76 marks in Advance Mathematics. The contention is that she had done extremely well in both the subjects but the result has shown otherwise. To demonstrate her acumen in the said two subjects, reference has been made to the marks secured by her in Class-IX and Class-X, being 93 and 82 in Social Science and 94 and 88 in Advance Mathematics respectively. Being aggrieved, the petitioner had made an application before the Board in the prescribed format and upon payment of the requisite fees for examination of the answer scripts. The said application was received at the end of SEBA on 7.6.2014. According to the petitioner she had persuaded with the application by visiting the Office of SEBA on several days. Months elapsed and nothing was communicated to her. Demoralised and depressed, the present proceeding was initiated with prayer for a direction to SEBA to re-examine and re-evaluate the answer scripts of Social Science and Advance Mathematics. An interim prayer was also made for a direction calling upon the respondents not to destroy/damage the answer scripts. 3. On 11.9.2014 this court while issuing notice of motion, directed that the answer scripts of the petitioner in respect of Social Science Subject and Advance Mathematics shall not be destroyed until the returnable date. 4. An affidavit-in-opposition has been filed by the respondent Nos.1 and 2. In the said affidavit it is indicated that pursuant to the application submitted by the petitioner, the answer scripts of both Social Science and Advance Mathematics were re-examined in strict accordance with the Re-examination Rules of SEBA. It is stated that under the existing Regulation for conduct of Board s examination, there is no scope for re-evaluation of answer scripts, save and except, only re-examination of evaluated scripts. 5. It is stated that under the existing Regulation for conduct of Board s examination, there is no scope for re-evaluation of answer scripts, save and except, only re-examination of evaluated scripts. 5. According to the respondents, the exercise for re-examination involves : (a) Re-totalling of marks awarded by the examiner, (b) Assessment of answers which has been left out unevaluated, and (c) Correction of wrong entry of marks of any manner/nature. 6. In strict accordance thereof, the Board had re-examined both the answer scripts and results had also been published on 7.7.2014. The reexamination resulted in enhancement of marks in Social Science by 3 marks while no change of marks was found necessary in Advance Mathematics. From the affidavit it also transpires that the results of reexamination had been communicated to all Officers in-charge of HSLC/AHM Examination and also published in the official website of the SEBA. It is indicated that the Board does not communicate results of reexamination individually to the candidates and, in fact, the candidates must obtain their results either from the respective centres of examination or download the same from the website. 7. As to the method of examining the answer scripts, it has been stated in the affidavit that only experienced teachers are appointed as Examiners and after the script is evaluated it is scrutinised by more experienced Scrutiniser under the supervision of a Head Examiner, who himself scrutinises a portion of the scripts. An admission is made that in the examination of the scripts no full proof methodology can be applied and there may be variation in awarding of marks from one examiner to another examiner. Subjectivity cannot be overruled in manual evaluation. In so far as the final results after re-examination is concerned, it is indicated that petitioner can collect the same from the Board upon returning the original mark-sheet. 8. In terms of the order of this court dated 10.9.2015, the answer scripts of both Social Science and Advance Mathematics have been produced by Mr. Chutia. I have carefully looked into the answer scripts and do not find any discrepancy in the final award of marks by the Board. However, what needs to be pointed out is that at least in the answer to Question No.7 in the Social Science subject, originally 'zero' marks was given which, however, was changed to 'one' mark upon re-examination. Chutia. I have carefully looked into the answer scripts and do not find any discrepancy in the final award of marks by the Board. However, what needs to be pointed out is that at least in the answer to Question No.7 in the Social Science subject, originally 'zero' marks was given which, however, was changed to 'one' mark upon re-examination. This is an aspect which goes contrary to the stand of the Board that under the Regulation there is no scope of re-evaluation of scripts. Further, the quality of answers do not go to justify awarding of zero marks in some of the answers. These are only some observations made upon close perusal of the answer scripts in the Social Science Subject. 9. Unfortunate it may be, but the fact remains that the final marks secured by the petitioner can only stand at 53 marks (not including the 20 marks secured in Internal Assessment) in Social Science and 76 marks in advance Mathematics. The grievances raised by the petitioner had been duly attended to by undertaking re-examination of the answer scripts of both Social Science and Advance Mathematics. 10. It is stated at the Bar that this case is not an isolated one where grievance is being made with regard to award of marks. It is informed that such grievances finds place in galore where the Board is called upon to make re-examination of the answer scripts. 11. As indicated earlier, the Board upon re-examination had also reevaluated the marks, at least insofar as Question No.7 of Social Science Subject is concerned. Further, it has also been observed that the quality of answers against certain questions had been under-evaluated. To eschew any discrepancy in the evaluation of answer scripts and to overcome any element of subjectivity of the examiner, it is high time for the Board to evolve certain procedure for overcoming such shortcomings. In this context, reference can be made to the case of Sanjay Singh and Another v. U.P. Public Commission, Allahabad, (2007) 3 SCC 720 . In the said case, reference has been made to a phenomenon called "examiner variability". The said phenomenon denotes that there is all likelihood of different marks being awarded if the same answer script is given to different examiners. In the said case, reference has been made to a phenomenon called "examiner variability". The said phenomenon denotes that there is all likelihood of different marks being awarded if the same answer script is given to different examiners. To take it further, it mean that there can be a "reduced valuation" by a strict examiner and "enhanced valuation" by a liberal examiner. To overcome the element of subjectivity of the Examiner while awarding marks, there is a need to evolve a procedure to ensure that uniformity in evaluation is maintained so as to minimise the effect of "examiner subjectivity". 12. The aforesaid judgment rendered by the Apex Court is an eye-opener and SEBA would be the best advised to draw inputs there from. The fate of a student on the basis of performance in the examination needs to be evaluated by minimising the element of subjectivity of the Examiner concerned. This is an aspect which needs to be seriously looked into by the Board. 13. Besides the observations made above, in so far as the present proceeding is concerned, the grievance made by the petitioner for reexamination and re-evaluation of the answer scripts having been discharged by the Respondent Board, no further adjudication of the case subsists. 14. In, view of the above, this writ petition stands disposed of on the findings and observations made above. ----------