JUDGMENT AND ORDER : Ujjal Bhuyan, J. 1. Heard Mr. G. Das, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA) for the respondents. 2. By filing this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, petitioner seeks a direction to the respondents to grant him due marks by removing the discrepancies and adequately compensating him for the suffering he had to face because of negligence of the respondents in awarding due marks to him in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination, 2015. 3. Case of the petitioner is that he was a student of Don Bosco Higher Secondary School, Dibrugarh and had appeared in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination (HSLC), 2015 conducted by SEBA bearing Roll No. 12500031. 4. Result of the said examination was declared on 02.06.2015. Petitioner was placed in the First Division with 95.83% marks with a score of 575 out of 600. 5. Petitioner had secured 88 marks in General English and 94 marks in Social Science. According to the petitioner, considering his excellent performance in the examination and his consistent good academic track record, he expected more marks in the above two subjects. Therefore, to satisfy himself whether due marks were given, he obtained answer scripts of General English and Social Science through the Right to Information Act, 2005. Not satisfied with the marks awarded, petitioner applied for re-examination of his answer scripts in General English and Social Science. Re-examination results were declared on 10.08.2015 wherein it was indicated that there was no change in the marks obtained by the petitioner in the above two subjects. 6. Aggrieved, present writ petition has been filed seeking the relief as indicated above. 7. In paragraph 8 of the writ petition, petitioner has given details of the questions for the answers of which he was not awarded commensurate marks. In respect of General English, for the answers given by the petitioner to question Nos. 2, 4, 7, 14, 15(a), 16(a), 17, 22(b), 24, 27 and 29 (b)(i) due marks were not given. Likewise in the Social Science subject, due marks were not given to the answers given by the petitioner in respect of question Nos. 12 and 27. 8. On 16.12.2015, this Court issued notice. 9. In response to the notice, respondents have filed a common affidavit. Likewise in the Social Science subject, due marks were not given to the answers given by the petitioner in respect of question Nos. 12 and 27. 8. On 16.12.2015, this Court issued notice. 9. In response to the notice, respondents have filed a common affidavit. Stand taken in the affidavit is that answer scripts of the petitioner were evaluated by experienced teachers. Marks have been awarded on the basis of performance. Re-examination of the answer scripts of the petitioner in respect of General English and Social Science subjects was carried out as per norms of SEBA. During re-examination, the examiners did not find any mistake in the evaluation of the answers of the petitioner. As a result, there was no change in the marks of the petitioner in respect of the above two subjects. As per Regulation of SEBA, re-examination would be confined to three situations only, namely, re-totalling of marks awarded by the examiners, assessment of answers which were not evaluated earlier and correction of wrong entry of marks in any manner/nature. It is stated that scrutiny of the answer scripts were not carried out through a computerized system. Therefore, awarding of marks by the examiner would be on the basis of assessment of the examiner concerned. In such a case, a writ petition challenging award of marks by the examiner would not be maintainable. There was neither any negligence nor any mala-fide intention on the part of the examiner. Answer scripts of the petitioner were assessed in a fair manner. It is also stated that every year SEBA conducts HSLC examination of over 4 lakh candidates and the number of answer scripts for re-examination comes to around 27 lakhs. About 19,000 teachers are associated in the evaluation process. To ensure that there is no mistake while evaluating the answer scripts there is provision of re-examination in the three situations mentioned above. 10. Learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to the questions in the two subjects mentioned above and submits that as per textbook of SEBA itself, answers given by the petitioner were correct. Petitioner is a brilliant student and deprivation of a couple of marks had adversely affected his standing on merit in as much as had due marks been given to the petitioner he would have been one of the rank holders. Petitioner is a brilliant student and deprivation of a couple of marks had adversely affected his standing on merit in as much as had due marks been given to the petitioner he would have been one of the rank holders. He submits that present is a fit case where the Court may direct SEBA to engage an independent examiner to re-evaluate the answers given by the petitioner to the questions mentioned above. In this connection, learned counsel for the petitioner has placed reliance on the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in the case of the Pranshu Indurkhya (Minor) vs. State of MP & Others, reported in AIR 2005 MP 152 and of the Apex Court in the case of President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Another vs. D. Suvankar & Another, reported in (2007) 1 SCC 603 . 11. On the other hand, Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA submits that SEBA has framed a set of regulations for conduct of examinations which is called the Board of Secondary Education, Assam Regulations For Conduct of Board's Examinations. As per Regulation 48, a candidate may apply for re-examination of answer scripts subject to maximum of five papers or three subjects by paying the necessary fees and within the prescribed period. However, re-examination would be confined to three situations, namely, (a) re-totalling of marks awarded by the examiner, (b) assessment of answers which were not evaluated earlier and (c) correction of wrong entry of marks of any manner/nature. He submits that on application of the petitioner his answer scripts pertaining to General English and Social Science subjects were duly re-examined by engaging experts. As per report of re-examination, there was no error in awarding of marks in the two subjects. Accordingly, marks awarded to the petitioner in the two subjects remained unaltered. Learned counsel for the respondents further submits that the prayer made by the petitioner for re-evaluation of the answer scripts in the two subjects is totally impermissible having regard to the limitations contained in Regulation 48 and if this is permitted it will create havoc in the examination system as SEBA will not be in a position to conduct re-evaluation of answer scripts of thousands of candidates who may have real or imaginary grievance in the award of marks. He, therefore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 12. He, therefore, seeks dismissal of the writ petition. 12. Submissions made by learned counsel for the parties have received the due consideration of the Court. 13. At the outset, it may be made clear that Court is conscious that it is dealing with the case of a student who is of tender age and whose grievance pertains to his first public examination. The documents placed on record clearly discloses that the petitioner is a highly meritorious student and had performed exceptionally well in the HSLC examination. Court is also conscious of the fact that in this age of cut throat competition where one mark here or there can make or mar the prospects of a student, students and their parents have high expectations and constantly try to raise the bar. In such a scenario, it is quite but natural that there may be dissatisfaction amongst such students in the award of marks. 14. Having said that Court would also not lose sight of the fact that time and again the Apex Court has held that in matters relating to award of marks, the Court would normally show due deference to the views of the experts. Re-evaluation of the answer scripts have been consistently discouraged by the Apex Court. Save and except in those real category of cases were allegations of mala-fide and vindictiveness could be demonstrated to the satisfaction of the Court, interference by the Court in the exercise of writ jurisdiction would be limited to that of re-examination though having regard to the scope and ambit of writ jurisdiction there can be no hard and fast rule restraining the Writ Court from intervening in a matter where such intervention would be justified for compelling reasons and for apparent infirmity in evaluation. 15. In the instant case, SEBA has framed the Board of Secondary Education, Assam Regulation For Conduct of Board's Examinations in exercise of powers conferred under Section 24(1) and (2) (a to m) of the Assam Secondary Education Act, 1961. In other words, the above set of regulations are statutory regulations governing SEBA in the conduct of examinations. The Regulations lay down various checks and balances while assessing the answer scripts of the candidates right from the setting of question papers to tabulation of marks. In other words, the above set of regulations are statutory regulations governing SEBA in the conduct of examinations. The Regulations lay down various checks and balances while assessing the answer scripts of the candidates right from the setting of question papers to tabulation of marks. It is not necessary to refer to in detail the various provisions contained in the Regulations save and except that under Regulation 48, which provides for re-examination, such re-examination would be confined to the three situations as already mentioned above. However, even at the cost of repetition those are restated hereunder:- (1) Re-examination shall consist of re-totalling of marks awarded by the examiner. Re-examination shall not mean re-evaluation of the answers scripts. (2) Assessment of answers which were not evaluated earlier. (3) Correction of wrong entry of marks of any manner/nature. 16. Thus from a careful reading of Regulation 48 it is abundantly clear that re-examination does not include re-evaluation of answer scripts which is specifically excluded from the purview of re-examination. 17. In the course of hearing, Mr. Chutia, learned Standing Counsel has placed before the Court the record of answer scripts allotted for re-examination which includes that of the petitioner. On a perusal of the record of answer scripts, it is seen that two examiners had re-examined the answer scripts of the petitioner in respect of General English and Social Science subjects, one for each paper. At the end of re-examination the concerned re-examiner stated that the marks awarded to the petitioner in the above two subjects did not warrant any alteration. 18. Having regard to the above and the mandate of Regulation 48, in my view, the scrutiny of the Court should stop here. Since there is no provision for re-evaluation no direction can be issued to the respondents for re-evaluation of the answer scripts of the petitioner. The decision of the Apex Court in the case of D. Suvankar (supra) only reinforces the above legal position which is also the case in the MP High Court decision. 19. For the aforesaid reasons, Court is not inclined to accede to the prayer made by the petitioner. Before parting with the record this Court can only hope and trust that the petitioner instead of lamenting the alleged inadequate marks awarded to him in the HSLC examination would look forward to successfully meet the future challenges that lie ahead of him. 20. Before parting with the record this Court can only hope and trust that the petitioner instead of lamenting the alleged inadequate marks awarded to him in the HSLC examination would look forward to successfully meet the future challenges that lie ahead of him. 20. Subject to the observation made above, writ petition is dismissed. No cost.