JUDGMENT Hon’ble Rajan Roy, J.—Petitioners herein, are M.B.B.S. students serving in the opposite party No. 3 institution which is affiliated to Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Awadh University, Faizabad (in short “the University”). They have approached this Court seeking a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioners and permit them to join regular classes of second year M.B.B.S. Course till the result of re-evaluation is declared. No interim stay order was passed in favour of the petitioners. Instead, on 30.10.2013, the following order was passed by this Court: “No exceptional circumstance has been shown to the Court to justify the order for re evaulation of the papers of the petitioners. On request of learned counsel for the petitioners, list this case after ten days.”. 2. The contention of the petitioners that they have appeared in the M.B.B.S. First year Main Examination and when the result was declared, it transpired that they failed in some of the subjects. The supporting documents/marksheets, contained in Annexure-2 to the writ petition, show that the petitioners have failed in some of the papers of Anatomy, Physiology and Bio-Chemistry. In some of the papers in which they have failed, they have been awarded one or two marks while in others they have been awarded 4-12 marks out of 50. The petitioners applied for scrutiny but their marks did not undergo any change as a result thereof. Petitioners have already appeared in the supplementary examination held for the subjects in which they had failed and the result is likely to be declared shortly. They came to know that in other cases re-evaluation of answer sheets have been done under the orders of the High Court and as a result thereof, the concerned students were awarded enhanced marks therefore they have also approached this Court. In support of their contention details have been given which is contained in Annexure-3A and 3B to the writ petition. 3. The only case of the petitioners is that they are meritorious students and awarding of such low marks creates a reasonable doubt about the manner in which their answer sheets have been evaluated, therefore, the same should be re-evaluated, otherwise great prejudice and injustice would be caused to them. 4. 3. The only case of the petitioners is that they are meritorious students and awarding of such low marks creates a reasonable doubt about the manner in which their answer sheets have been evaluated, therefore, the same should be re-evaluated, otherwise great prejudice and injustice would be caused to them. 4. Inspite of several opportunities having been granted and inspite of stop order dated 17.12.2014 having been passed by this Court, no counter-affidavit has been filed by the opposite parties. 5. The legal position regarding re-evaluation of answersheets is very well-settled by a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court; the first one having been rendered in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth and others, (1884) 4 SCC 27, followed by other judgments, the recent one being in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 SCC 759 . In the aforesaid judgments, it has been held that finality has to be given to the result of an examination and in the absence of any provisions in the Statute, Rules and Regulations, the Court should not generally direct re-evaluation. In Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others, (2004) 6 SCC 714 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that in the absence of any provisions for re-evaluation of the answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his answer books. In the case of Secy. W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and others, (2007) 8 SCC 242 , their Lordships of the Supreme Court, inter alia, held that the Courts normally would not direct the production of answer books unless a case is made out to show that either some question has not been evaluated or that the evaluation has been done contrary to the norms fixed by the examining body. The same should be a rarity and it can only be done in exceptional cases. 6. In the case in President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another v. D Suvankar and another, 2007(1) SCC 603 , the Supreme Court and another, the Supreme Court observed as under: “5. The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. The same should be a rarity and it can only be done in exceptional cases. 6. In the case in President Board of Secondary Education, Orissa and another v. D Suvankar and another, 2007(1) SCC 603 , the Supreme Court and another, the Supreme Court observed as under: “5. The Board is in appeal against the cost imposed. As observed by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkurmar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 , it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and re-evaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking, etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process. The Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them. It would be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and gross root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to pragmatic one was to be propounded....” 7. In Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others, (2009) 1 SCC 599 , a three Judge Bench of the Supreme Court after considering the principles laid down as aforesaid, drew a distinction as regards the cases involving the alleged right of students or candidates to claim re-examination or re-evaluation of answer sheets and the power of the High Court to order re-evaluation of the answer sheets, vis-a-vis, the cases where a competent academic authority had itself exercised the power to order re-evaluation of the answer books based on the factual scenario before it. In paragraph 36 of the aforesaid judgment it has been observed as under: “the Supreme Court (in Board of Secondary Education case) was of the opinion that the question as to whether, in the absence of any provision to that effect an examinee is entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer books was examined by the Supreme Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna and others (supra). It was noticed by the Supreme Court that in the said decision it was held that in the absence of rules providing for re-evaluation of answer books no direction should be issued because a direction for re-evaluation of the answer books would through many problems and in the larger public interest such a direction must be avoided. Therefore, the Supreme Court expressed the opinion that the order of the High Court directing re-evaluation of the answer books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was clearly unsustainable in law and set aside the same. The above decision deals with the rights of the student or candidate to claim re-examination/re-evaluation of his answer sheet and the power of the High Court to order re-evaluation of answer sheets. It does not deal with the power of the Board to order re-evaluation of answer books if the factual scenario so demands.” 8. In Sahiti’s case the Vice-Chancellor had taken a decision for re-evaluation of the answer books and the issue before the Supreme Court was, as to whether the exercise of the power by the Vice-Chancellor, ordering re-evaluation of the answer sheets in the factual scenario present before it was valid or not. While dealing with the aforesaid issue their Lordships of the Supreme Court in paragraphs 37, 38 and 39 of Sahiti’s case, their Lordships observed as under: “37. Award of marks by an examiner has to be fair and considering the fact that re-evaluation is not permissible under the Statutes at the instance of the candidate, the examiner has to be careful, cautious and has the duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. Therefore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts, re-evaluation may be found necessary. 38. Therefore, where the authorities find that award of marks by an examiner is not fair or that the examiner was not careful in evaluating the answer scripts, re-evaluation may be found necessary. 38. There may be several instances wherein re-evaluation of the answer scripts may be required to be ordered and this Court need not make an exhaustive catalogue of the same. However, if the authorities are of the opinion that re-evaluation of the answer scripts is necessary then the Court would be slow to substitute its own views for that of those who are expert in academic matters. 39. Under the circumstances, the plea advanced on behalf of the respondents that the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences had no authority to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts, cannot be upheld. Therefore, this Court does not agree with the findings recorded by the Division Bench of the High Court that the Vice-Chancellor of the University had no power or jurisdiction to order the reverification of answer scripts. However, the facts indicate that the Vice-Chancellor had exercised power to order reverification of answer scripts under pressure and coercion from the students and their parents and not independently on merits. 9. Their Lordships after considering the provisions of Section 12(2) and (3) of the Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act of 1986 and the Statutes made thereunder, opined that in view of the provisions contained therein, the Vice-Chancellor, being the principal executive and academic officer, carried with him certain express general powers, those implied as well as emergency and residuary powers and repelled the plea that, as there is absence of specific provision enabling the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts, he could not have done so. Relevant paragraphs 28, 29, 30, 31 and 32 of the aforesaid judgment are quoted hereinbelow: “28. A conjoint and meaningful reading of the provisions of Section 12(2) of the Act with Section 12(3) of the Act makes it evident that the Vice-Chancellor has power to take appropriate action relating to the affairs of the University, which includes conduct of examination also. The Vice-Chancellor is the conscious keeper of the University. He is the principal executive and academic officer of the University. He is entrusted with the responsibility of overall administration of academic as well as non-academic affairs. The Vice-Chancellor is the conscious keeper of the University. He is the principal executive and academic officer of the University. He is entrusted with the responsibility of overall administration of academic as well as non-academic affairs. For these purposes, the Act confers both express and implied powers on the Vice-Chancellor. 29. Section 30 of the Act confers power on the Executive Council to make statutes. In exercise of that power, the Executive Council has framed the Statutes of the University. Clause 1 of the Statutes deals with the status of the Vice-Chancellor and his powers and duties. Sub-clause (3) of Clause 1 of the Statutes provides that it shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to see that the provisions of this Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations are duly observed and he may exercise all powers necessary for this purpose. Thus the express powers include among others, the duty to ensure that the provisions of the Act, Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations are observed by all concerned. The wording of sub-clause (3) of Clause 1 of the Statutes shows that a residuary power which is required to be exercised, in order to see that the provisions of the Act, the Statutes, Ordinances and Regulations are duly observed, is vested in the Vice-Chancellor. 30.The Vice-Chancellor has the right to regulate the work and conduct of officers and other employees of the University. He has also emergency powers to deal with any untoward situation. The power conferred under Sections 12(2) and 12(3) is indeed significant. If the Vice-Chancellor believes that a situation calls for immediate action, he can take such action as he thinks necessary though in the normal course he is not competent to take that action. However, he must report to the authority or body concerned, which would, in the ordinary course, have dealt with the matter. That is not all. His pivotal position as the principal executive officer also carries with him certain implied powers. It is the magisterial power which is plainly to be inferred. This power is essential for him to maintain domestic discipline in the academic and non-academic affairs. In a wide variety of situations in the relationship of tutor and pupil he has to act firmly and promptly to put down indiscipline and malpractice. 31. It is the magisterial power which is plainly to be inferred. This power is essential for him to maintain domestic discipline in the academic and non-academic affairs. In a wide variety of situations in the relationship of tutor and pupil he has to act firmly and promptly to put down indiscipline and malpractice. 31. As per the Statutes of the University, the Vice-Chancellor is a whole-time officer of the University and by virtue of his office, is a Member and Chairman of the Executive Council and of the Academic Council. He has power to convene meetings of the Executive Council and the Academic Council. 32. The plea that there is absence of specific provision enabling the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation of the answer scripts and, therefore, the judgment impugned should not be interfered with, cannot be accepted. Re-evaluation of answer scripts in the absence of specific provision is perfectly legal and permissible. In such cases, what the Court should consider is whether the decision of the educational authority is arbitrary, unreasonable, mala fide and whether the decision contravenes any statutory or binding rule or ordinance and in doing so, the Court should show due regard to the opinion expressed by the authority.” 10. Though their Lordships held that the Vice-Chancellor had the power to order re-evaluation, but, they ultimately held that the exercise of power in the facts of the said case, was not sustainable. 11. The aforesaid judgment was referred by the Supreme Court in a subsequent case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and another, (2010) 6 SCC 759 . 12. A similar issue came up for consideration before this Court in a writ petition before this Court being W.P. No. 3964 of 2014, decided on 22.7.2014, which has been relied upon by the petitioners, wherein, after referring to paragraph 32 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others (supra) as also paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission case (supra), this Court held that it cannot be said that the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Awadh University, Faizabad did not have the power to order re-evaluation of the answer sheets. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others (supra) as also paragraph 26 of the judgment of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission case (supra), this Court held that it cannot be said that the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Awadh University, Faizabad did not have the power to order re-evaluation of the answer sheets. The Court directed the petitioner to file a fresh representation and the Vice-Chancellor was directed to pass appropriate order in the light of the observations made in the said judgment. 13. In the backdrop of the aforesaid legal position, I am of the view that in the context of the issue of re-evaluation, there are four types of cases, one, where there is no specific provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets nor are there provisions analogous to those considered in Sahiti’s case under which re-evaluation could be ordered in a given fatual scenario as referred therein, second category comprises of those cases where not only there is no provision for re-evaluation but in fact, there is a specific bar or prohibition in the relevant Act, Statutes, Rules etc. with regard to re-evaluation. The third type of cases are those, where, though there is no specific provision for re-evaluation, but, considering the powers vested in the academic authorities, as in Sahiti’s case (supra) re-evaluation is ordered by them in a given factual scenario, as, it is necessary to do so. Such decision can be subjected to judicial scrutiny by the Courts on the anvil of the principles laid down in Sahiti’s case. Fourth category comprises of cases where provision has been made for re-evaluation of answer sheets. 14. The first and second category of cases are covered by the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education (supra) and subsequent decisions following it. The third category of cases are covered by Sahiti’s case (supra). The fourth category of cases do not attract the said pronouncements, except as regards the object and scope of such power. 15. In cases falling under the first and second category, examinees cannot raise a claim for re-evaluation of answer sheets, whether before the authorities or the Courts except, may be, in rare cases of proven and apparent grave error causing substantial injury to the examinee. 15. In cases falling under the first and second category, examinees cannot raise a claim for re-evaluation of answer sheets, whether before the authorities or the Courts except, may be, in rare cases of proven and apparent grave error causing substantial injury to the examinee. In the third category of cases, if a decision has been taken by the authorities for re-evaluation based on powers analogous to those referred in Sahiti’s case (supra), the same can be subjected to judicial scrutiny on the parameters laid down in Sahiti’s case, but, whether, based on such provisions as considered in Sahiti’s case, a petition can be maintained for a writ of mandamus to the authorities to re-evaluate the answer sheets is the question to be considered in this case. 16. The ratio of the judgment in Sahiti’s case (supra) is to be understood in the context of the issue involved therein. It was not a case falling in the first or second category referred above. The Supreme Court itself drew a distinction in this regard in paragraph 36 of its judgment and proceeded on the basis of this distinction, which is very important in understanding the ratio of its judgment. 17. In Sahiti’s case (supra) the Vice-Chancellor, in view of the pressure exerted by the guardians had ordered re-evaluation of answer sheets of some students. The said decision, after initially being approved by the Executive Council, was subsequently cancelled by it, considering the opinion of the Advocate General that merely because certain representations/complaints were received from the students/parents, the Vice-Chancellor ought not to have ordered re-evaluation of answer sheets, more particularly, where there is no provision in the Act to do so. 18. Thus, the issue before the Supreme Court was as to whether the action of the Vice-Chancellor was permissible in law and whether the exercise of power, if permissible, was valid in the facts of the said case or not. 19. 18. Thus, the issue before the Supreme Court was as to whether the action of the Vice-Chancellor was permissible in law and whether the exercise of power, if permissible, was valid in the facts of the said case or not. 19. Against the aforesaid background, after considering the provisions of the Act and Statutes, the Supreme Court held that the Vice-Chancellor by virtue of his position, as Chief Executive Officer, is responsible for the conduct of the affairs of the University, including conduct of examination, and in view of the express, implied, emergency as well as residuary powers vested in him under the Acts and Statutes, possessed the power to order re-evaluation of answer sheets in a given fact scenario, if it is necessary to do so, even in the absence of specific provision permitting such re-evaluation. 20. It is in this light that the observations/ratio of the Supreme Court in Sahiti’s case (supra), especially paragraph 32 thereof, as quoted hereinabove, have to be read and understood. 21. Sahiti’s case (supra) does not lay down any proposition of law permitting the students to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ of mandamus in the absence of any specific provision for re-evaluation of answer sheets nor for issuance of such writ based on the power of the Vice-Chancellor under the provisions considered in the said case if he has not decided to order re-evaluation. Such provisions do not mandatorily obligate the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation or take a decision in this regard. It is for the authorities to consider whether re-evaluation is required or not as they are the best judge in such matters. The exercise of power by the Vice-Chancellor under such provisions is discretionary, subject to existence of a factual scenario warranting re-evaluation keeping in mind the observations in Sahiti’s case (supra). Such provisions do not confer any right upon the examinees. If the Vice-Chancellor does not order re-evaluation the examinee cannot maintain a writ petition based on such provisions as considered in Sahiti’s case (supra), for issuance of a writ of mandamus to him for exercising his power, except, in exceptional cases, where exceptional reasons or circumstances exist pointing towards apparent and grave error causing substantial and irreparable injury to the examinee(s) which does not require any roving enquiry or assessment. The judgment of this Court in Writ Petition No. 3964 of 2014 also does not confer any enforceable right of re-evaluation on the examinees based on Sahiti’s case (supra). 22. In the case of Central Board of Secondary Education and another v. Aditya Bandopadhyaya and others, (2011) 8 SCC 497 , the Supreme Court has permitted examinees to inspect their answer sheets subject to the conditions mentioned therein, therefore, in some cases, students can, after examination of their answer sheets, form a definite opinion regarding the assessment of the same, instead of feeling aggrieved merely on a hunch. Petitioners herein have not taken recourse to the provisions of the Right to Information Act based on this judgment. 23. Now coming back to the case at hand, the Respondent University is governed by the provisions contained in the U.P. State Universities Act, 1973. There is no provision in the Act of 1973 nor in the Statutes, Regulations, Ordinances of the respondent University made thereunder, providing for re-evaluation of answer sheets, even as per the petitioners, and none has been placed before the Court. Neither any provision which bars or prohibits re-evaluation in the said University, has been placed before the Court. Section 13 of the Act of 1973 deals with powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor, relevant extract of which is as under: “13. Powers and duties of the Vice-Chancellor.—(1) The Vice-Chancellor shall be the principal executive and academic officer of the University and shall- (a) exercise general supervision and control over the affairs of the University including the constituent colleges and the Institutes maintained by the University and its affiliated and associated colleges; (b)......... (c)......... (d)be responsible for the maintenance of discipline in the University; (e) be responsible for holding and conducting the University examinations properly and at due times and for ensuring that the results of such examinations are published expeditiously and that the academic session of the University starts and ends on proper dates. (2)........ (3)......... (4) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinance and he shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Chancellor (under Sections 10 and 68) possess all such powers as may be necessary in that behalf. (5)....... (2)........ (3)......... (4) It shall be the duty of the Vice-Chancellor to ensure the faithful observance of the provisions of this Act, the Statutes and the Ordinance and he shall, without prejudice to the powers of the Chancellor (under Sections 10 and 68) possess all such powers as may be necessary in that behalf. (5)....... (6) Where any matter other than the appointment of teacher of the University is of urgent nature requiring immediate action and the same could not be immediately dealt with by any officer or the authority or other body of the University empowered by or under this Act to deal with it, the Vice-Chancellor may take such action as he may deem fit and shall forthwith report the action taken by him to the Chancellor and also to the officer, authority, or other body who or which in the ordinary course would have dealt with the matter: Provided that no such action shall be taken by the Vice-Chancellor without the previous approval of the Chancellor, if it would involve a deviation from the provisions of the Statutes or the Ordinances: Provided further that if the officers, authority or other body is of opinion that such action ought not to have been taken, it may refer the matter to the Chancellor who may either confirm the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor or annul the same or modify it in such manner, as he thinks fit and thereupon, it shall cease to have effect or, as the case may be, take effect in the modified form, so however, that such annulment or modification shall be without prejudice to the validity of anything previously done by or under the order of the Vice-Chancellor: Provided also that any person in the service of University who is aggrieved by the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor under this sub-section, shall have the right to appeal against such action to the Executive Council within three months from the date on which decision on such action is communicated to him and thereupon, the Executive Council may confirm, modify or reverse the action taken by the Vice-Chancellor. (7) Nothing in sub-section (6) shall be deemed to empower the Vice-Chancellor to incur any expenditure not duly authorised and provided for in the budget. (8).......... (9) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers as may be laid down by the Statutes and the Ordinances.” 24. (7) Nothing in sub-section (6) shall be deemed to empower the Vice-Chancellor to incur any expenditure not duly authorised and provided for in the budget. (8).......... (9) The Vice-Chancellor shall exercise such other powers as may be laid down by the Statutes and the Ordinances.” 24. As the provisions contained in the U. P. State Universities Act, 1973, i.e., Section 13(1) (a), (b), (e) and Section 13(6), which apply to the respondent University, are similar to the provisions considered by the Supreme Court in Sahiti’s case (supra), therefore, based on the principle laid down therein, it cannot be said that the Vice-Chancellor of Dr. Ram Manohar Lohiya Awadh University, Faizabad does not have the power to order re-evaluation of answer sheets of the petitioners, if the situation so demands. However, the Court must hasten to add that this power has to be exercised cautiously and sparingly. Not in a routine manner. It has to be exercised keeping in mind the observations of the Supreme Court in Sahiti’s case (supra). 25. Having said so, this is not a case where the Vice-Chancellor has ordered re-evaluation of answer sheets, therefore, the factual scenario herein, is somewhat different from the one existing in Sahiti’s case (supra). Thus, though, this case falls in the third category referred above, but only partially. 26. The petitioners have not been able to place before this Court any specific provision in the Act of 1973, the Statutes, Regulations and Ordinances etc. made thereunder providing for re-evaluation of answer sheets therefore they do not have an enforceable right. As no decision has been taken by the Vice-Chancellor for re-evaluation, none is available for scrutiny by this Court. In view of the above discussion, Sections 12 and 13 of the Act of 1973 do not put any mandatory obligation upon the Vice-Chancellor to order re-evaluation so as to give a corresponding right to the petitioners to approach this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India on the ground of his failure to discharge such obligations. No exceptional reasons or circumstances exist in this case for issuance of a writ, as prayed for, therefore, the writ of mandamus being sought in the writ petition cannot be granted. 27. In view of the above, this writ petition for the reliefs claimed, is not maintainable. 28. No exceptional reasons or circumstances exist in this case for issuance of a writ, as prayed for, therefore, the writ of mandamus being sought in the writ petition cannot be granted. 27. In view of the above, this writ petition for the reliefs claimed, is not maintainable. 28. It is, however, open for the Vice-Chancellor to take appropriate decision on the application of the petitioners dated 9.10.2014, copies of which are annexed as Annexure-4 to the writ petition, in the light of dictum of the Supreme Court in Sahiti’s case (supra), if the same has not already been taken. If the decision has already been taken, the same may be communicated to the petitioners forthwith. Subject to the above, the writ petition is dismissed. ——————