ORDER : L. NARAYANA SWAMY, J. 1. All these writ petitions are similar in nature and therefore they are disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners in these writ petitions are pursuing their studies either in MBBS or BDS courses. They have taken up examination and are failed one or two subjects. Some of the petitioners have failed with little margin of marks say 1 or 2 marks. They are aggrieved by the method of evaluation adopted by the respondent on the ground of it being unscientific or arbitrary. They have sought for direction for further evaluation i.e., re-evaluation either on the ground that the first evaluator has not awarded proper marks or that the second evaluator. It is stated, by the act of evaluators not properly evaluating and not properly awarding proper marks to one or the other questions, in one or the other subject, has caused injustice to them and they are subjected to lose one academic year for the said lapse. In some cases when one evaluator has awarded marks it is apparent error on the part of the other evaluator to award 0' marks. The petitioners have prayed that they are entitled to get their answer papers evaluated by the third evaluator, who is expert in the subject, which would remedy the situation and it would meet the ends of justice. 3. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents. 4. It is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that if the students are meritorious and scored good number of marks in the previous examinations and if they are awarded very less marks in the particular subject, it is an instance where apparent error in evaluation can be inferred and it is a case where the answer paper/s are to be directed to be reevaluated by the third evaluator to meet the ends of justice. Further if one evaluator awards some reasonable marks and the other evaluator awards 0' marks, it is another instance where apparent error in evaluation can be inferred and matter has to be referred to the third evaluator to render justice. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing the writ petitions. 5. Further if one evaluator awards some reasonable marks and the other evaluator awards 0' marks, it is another instance where apparent error in evaluation can be inferred and matter has to be referred to the third evaluator to render justice. Thus the learned counsel for the petitioners prays for allowing the writ petitions. 5. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the respondents contends to dismiss the writ petition on the ground that there is no provision in the regulations providing for third evaluation. In the absence of regulations providing for third evaluator, the petitioners are not entitled to any relief in the present writ petitions irrespective of the fact by what margin of marks the petitioners have failed in the particular subject or subjects. There is a system and procedure as to how the answer scripts are to be evaluated and results are to be computed. If the prayers of the petitioners are to be considered, it will be impossible for the University to function as re-evaluation itself involves lot of time and labour and there will be no time for other activities in the University. 6. Therefore, the question before this court is, whether it is proper for this Court to direct third evaluation in the absence of any provisions of law? My answer would be not in favour of the petitioners for the following reasons. 7. In the cases on hand, double evaluation is adopted by the University as a method for evaluating the answer papers of the students, who are petitioners herein. Average marks awarded by the two evaluators would be taken for the purpose of computing the result. This method of evaluation is adopted by the University as a part of evaluation under Rajiv Gandhi University Health Sciences Act, 1984. The prayer made by the petitioners is that when one of the evaluators awarded reasonable marks, another awarding 0' marks is most unscientific and unreasonable and a case of this nature is to be referred to the third evaluator. The evaluator who awards 0' marks as against the other evaluator who awards reasonable marks, is deemed that he has not valued the papers properly and unscientifically and mechanically he has awarded 0' marks. The evaluator who awards 0' marks as against the other evaluator who awards reasonable marks, is deemed that he has not valued the papers properly and unscientifically and mechanically he has awarded 0' marks. It is submitted by the learned counsel that the educational background of the students showing their performance with distinct and outstanding marks, is to be presumed that they have done well in the present examination also. The Universities are performing the public function and they are State for the purpose of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. Hence they are amenable to this court for issuance of necessary directions. Their action is contrary to fair play, unreasonable and not free from arbitrariness and discrimination. 8. The University has issued notification dated 15.6.2012 regarding considering average of Best of two out of three valuation marks or average of Best of four out of five valuation marks for final computation of results. Clause 4 of the notification relates to procedure for multiple valuation and clause 4(I) & 4(IV) of the notification, which are relevant for the cases on hand, read as follows: "(I) All the answer scripts which are subjected for double valuation, wherein the difference in award of marks between TWO valuations is = 15%, shall be referred to THIRD examiner appointed by Vice-Chancellor chosen from an approved panel. (IV) The marks awarded and the results declared after considering this notification shall be final and under no circumstances further valuation shall be entertained." 9. The University has issued notification dated 2.12.2015 regarding procedure for Digital Valuation, Re-totalling and Photocpying. Clause 3 of the notification reads as follows: "3. Application Software utilized for the evaluation needs to be user friendly. Answer Scripts which will have to be I evaluated for the third time shall be based on the more than or equal to 15% difference between the first and second valuation. The 15% deviation should be calculated with actual marks and later it may be rounded off. For e.g. Marks 15% Deviation Cut off value 100 15 14.5 80 12 11.5 75 11.25 10.5 50 7.5 7.5 Similar procedure may be adopted for the other papers carrying different maximum marks." 10. The 15% deviation should be calculated with actual marks and later it may be rounded off. For e.g. Marks 15% Deviation Cut off value 100 15 14.5 80 12 11.5 75 11.25 10.5 50 7.5 7.5 Similar procedure may be adopted for the other papers carrying different maximum marks." 10. When the notification itself provides for third evaluation and explains the circumstances under which the third evaluation is to be done, any other circumstance cannot be taken into consideration by this court to give direction, unless this court finds patent irregularity, arbitrariness, want of fairness and discrimination etc., in the matter of evaluation of answer-scripts. 11. It is fairly submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioners that they have no statutory right flowing either from rules or regulations of the University to seek for third evaluation. It is their case that they have made out a case and convinced the court for issuing direction for third evaluation considering the hardship that may be caused and students losing one academic year by virtue of their failing with small margin of marks. In order to issue such a direction in the absence of provisions relating to it, it is necessary to refer some of the authorities on the question. 12. In (2014) 14 SCC 523 (Central Board of Secondary Education Thorugh Secretary, All India Pre-Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination and others v. Khushboo Shrivastava & others), the Apex court dealing with question of re-evaluation held, "in the absence of any provision for the re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. 13. In ILR 2002 Kar 1146 (Moazam Shah Khan & others v. Vice-Chancellor, Rajiv Gandhi University of Health Sciences & others), it has been held by this Court that ''Re-valuation how ever is not an inherent right in the students who appear in the examination. Such a right can be claimed or enforced only if the Regulations governing the examination provide for the same. Further dealing with validity or otherwise of the ordinance providing for double valuation, this court observed at page 1150 as follows: "The University is entitled to determine how the answer scripts for any given examination should be evaluated and by how many examiners. Further dealing with validity or otherwise of the ordinance providing for double valuation, this court observed at page 1150 as follows: "The University is entitled to determine how the answer scripts for any given examination should be evaluated and by how many examiners. It may consider evaluation only by one examiner to be sufficient and even in such a case it may not provide for revaluation of the scripts. The students cannot in such a situation claim any inherent right for re-valuation of the scripts. Judicial intervention apart, the evaluation made by a single examiner would also be binding on the student." It is further observed at page 1151 as follows: "There is no gain said that the element of error in human judgment is considerably lower in cases where the scripts are marked by two examiners independently. Two heads are certainly better than one, given regard to the fact that both have the basic qualifications prescribed for acting as examiners. The fact that double valuation causes any prejudice or that it introduces an element of irrationality in the process of evaluation of the scripts or that the candidates must even after a double valuation be given the right to seek a further valuation by a third examiner has therefore to be rejected." 14. In (2012) 1 SCC 157 (Sanchit Bansal v. Joint Admission Board), the Apex Court referring the judgment in Directorate of Film Festivals v. Gaurav Ash win Jain (2007) 4 SCC 737 , held as follows in para 26: "16 Courts do not and cannot act as appellate authorities examining the correctness, suitability and appropriateness of a policy, nor are courts advisors to the executive on matters of policy which the executive is entitled to formulate. The scope of judicial review when examining a policy of the Government is to check whether it violates the fundamental rights of the citizens or is opposed to the provisions of the Constitution, or opposed to any statutory provision or manifestly arbitrary. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review." 15. Courts cannot interfere with policy either on the ground that it is erroneous or on the ground that a better, fairer or wiser alternative is available. Legality of the policy, and not the wisdom or soundness of the policy, is the subject of judicial review." 15. For intervention of courts by issuing direction for re-evaluation, the court further held at para 39 thus: "39...There is no ground for the courts to interfere with the procedure, even if it was not accurate or efficient, in the absence of mala fides or arbitrariness or violation of law..." 16. In Pranshu Indurkhya (Minor) v. State of M. P. & others, (2005 2 MP LmJ 315), the Court referred the judgment in State Board of Secondary & Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth ( AIR 1984 SC 1543 ), the relevant portion of which is thus: "...Further, 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 revaluation 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 cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which wilfully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.... But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.... 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." Further the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that, "We are unable to agree with the further reason stated by the High Court that since 'every student has a right to receive fair play in examination and get appropriate marks matching his performance' it will be a denial of the right to such fair play if there is to be a prohibition on the right to demand revaluation and unless a right to revaluation is recognised and permitted, there is an infringement of rules of fair play". 17. Referring the judgment in Neha Indurkhya v. M. P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal (2003) 3 MPLJ 368 , it is held thus: "In the above background, any direction for 'Revaluation of answer papers' of the students seeking such 'Revaluation', the number whereof would certainly be in thousands and thousands, if not in lacs, will not only create practical difficulties for the Board, but also is bound to throw the entire system out of gear". 18. It is true, the power of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution is enormous and could be stretched to any extent for rendering justice. In para 6 of judgment in Neha Indurkhya, referred to supra, it is held, "it is no doubt true that in exceptional and rare case, the High Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction can call for answer scripts and even direct revaluation. But such exercise of power by High Court is not in recognition of any right to seek revaluation; but because a case for exercise of such power under Article 226 is made out. 19. Awarding of marks varies from evaluator to evaluator. But such exercise of power by High Court is not in recognition of any right to seek revaluation; but because a case for exercise of such power under Article 226 is made out. 19. Awarding of marks varies from evaluator to evaluator. The evaluator who is liberal, may award some marks according to his conscience and the evaluator who is not liberal, may not. That does not mean, evaluator who has awarded less marks, has not applied his mind and not valued the answer scripts properly. 20. In Madhyamik Shiksha Mandal, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal v. Kumari Nidhi Shrivastava (LPA No.63/1999 decided on 12.10.1999) the Division Bench of the Court held that, "Wherever answers are descriptive in nature, the assessment is bound to differ from examiner to examiner and it cannot be said that the examination by one examiner was faulty on account of difference of perception of another examiner. If this is permitted, then it will give a blow to the whole Regulation which does not permit revaluation of the copies". 21. Most of the petitioners herein, have taken a common ground about their performance in the previous examinations. Obtaining good marks in the previous examinations could be a guide to presume that students must have done well in the present examination also. It is submitted, this circumstance may be considered for directing revaluation. In W. P. No.52724/2015 disposed of on 7.09.2016 (Shirin Shamsi Jokandan v. State of Karnataka & another), this court has dealt with said contention in Para 10, which reads thus: "10. Undoubtedly, the petitioner happens to be a meritorious student who has secured first class in the first and the second year, and secured a distinction in the third year, but has missed the distinction only by a single mark in the fourth year. However, even if the petitioner is a meritorious student, in the absence of any Rules or Regulations of the University, granting a right of revaluation of the paper, the said right can neither be pleaded, nor granted by this Court. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned Counsel that the University should be directed to re-evaluate her answer script cannot be accepted". 22. Therefore, the first contention raised by the learned Counsel that the University should be directed to re-evaluate her answer script cannot be accepted". 22. It is to be noted that even in the absence of any provision, this court still can interfere where this court is convinced that there is arbitrary exercise of power, absence of fair play, discrimination and patent illegality in the procedure of evaluating the answer scripts. No such circumstance is made in any of these cases. In that view of the matter, the prayer of the petitioners cannot be conceded as otherwise it would involve more time, labour, practical difficulties and would throw the entire system out of gear. There will be no time left for teaching and other functions in the University. There is no right much less the statutory right which can be said to have been infringed so as to interfere in any of these cases. Moreover, in this type of matters, expertise and the wisdom the academicians have, has to be regarded, unless the small area in which this Court can exercise its power under its writ jurisdiction that is, arbitrariness, discrimination, lack of fair play and patent illegality. 23. For the above reasons, all these petitions fail and they are accordingly rejected.