JUDGMENT : MANOJIT BHUYAN, J. 1. Heard Mr. K.N. Choudhury, learned senior counsel, representing the appellant as well as Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned counsel representing the respondent-Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA). 2. This intra-court appeal is presented against the judgment and order dated 11.7.2016 whereby WP(C) No. 7577/2015 was dismissed. 3. Facts leading to the institution of the writ petition by the appellant herein are that he appeared in the High School Leaving Certificate Examination (‘HSLC’) in the year 2015 conducted by SEBA. Result of the said examination was declared on 2.6.2015 with the appellant securing First Division with an aggregate of 95.83%. Grievance was raised in respect of the marks awarded to him in General English and in Social Science. Application was made for re-examination of his answer scripts in the said two subjects and on 10.8.2015 SEBA declared that there can be no change in the marks obtained by him in General English and Social Science. Aggrieved, the writ petition was instituted. 4. The writ petition was answered in the negative and while doing so the learned Single Judge took notice of the decisions of the Apex Court in matters relating to award of marks. It was held that the court would normally show due deference to the views of the Experts and discourage re-evaluation of answer scripts, save in cases where allegations of mala fide and vindictiveness are demonstrated to the satisfaction of the court. Notice was also had to regulation 48 of the Board of Secondary Education, Assam Regulations for Conduct of Board's Examination, framed in exercise of powers under sections 24(1) and (2)(a) to (m) of the Assam Secondary Education Act, 1961. Regulation 48 contemplates three situations for re-examination of answer scripts, namely, that— (a) Re-examination shall not mean re-evaluation of the scripts. Reexamination shall consist of re-totalling of marks awarded by the examiner and/or; (b) Assessment of answer(s) which has/have been left out unevaluated and/or; (c) Correction of wrong entry of marks of any manner/nature. 5. Learned Single Judge held that the scope of re-examination under regulation 48 clearly does not include re-evaluation of answer scripts. Reexamination shall consist of re-totalling of marks awarded by the examiner and/or; (b) Assessment of answer(s) which has/have been left out unevaluated and/or; (c) Correction of wrong entry of marks of any manner/nature. 5. Learned Single Judge held that the scope of re-examination under regulation 48 clearly does not include re-evaluation of answer scripts. What the appellant was asking for was re-evaluation, which is not permitted in view of the decision of the Apex Court in President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. D. Suvankar, (2007) 1 SCC 603 and in view of the decision of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Pranshu Indurkhya (Minor) v. State of MP, AIR 2005 MP 152 . The writ petition was accordingly dismissed. In the present appeal, Mr. Choudhury submits that although re-evaluation of answer scripts is not permitted under the law, however, the case of the appellant/writ petitioner is covered under the second situation, in that, assessment of answer to Question No. 27 of the Social Science question paper and Question No. 17 of the English question paper were not assessed/evaluated correctly. He makes reference to Question No. 27 of the Social Science question paper to say that 6 marks were allotted and the same was divided in two parts, i.e., 2+4. The question was with regard to drawing a sketch map of Assam and to locate four places in the same map. According to Mr. Choudhury, 2 marks was for drawing the sketch map and 4 marks for locating the four specific places in the map. Referring to the answer script in respect of the said Question No. 27 (at page 40 of the Appeal Memo), Mr. Choudhury submits that whereas 4 marks had been awarded for correctly locating the four places in the map, no assessment was made or marks awarded for drawing the sketch map of Assam. Reference is also made to Question No. 17 of the English question paper where a candidate was asked to fill in the blanks to the sentence “Please give me time to finish the work. Then I will take you to university.” The appellant had filled in the blanks with the words “some” and “the” to make the sentence read as “Please give me some time to finish the work. Then I will take you to university.” The appellant had filled in the blanks with the words “some” and “the” to make the sentence read as “Please give me some time to finish the work. Then I will take you to the university.” The said answer to Question No. 17 is found at page 52 of the Appeal Memo. It is stated that against the total 2 marks for Question No. 17, the appellant was awarded only 1 mark. The examiner concerned found the word “some” as incorrect but found the word “the” as correct and on that count awarded only 1 mark. According to Mr. Choudhury the assessment so made was wholly incorrect and in support thereof relied on the answer script of the candidate who had secured the State highest marks at page 129 of the Appeal Memo who had also answered Question No. 17 by the words “some” and “the”. On a pointed query of this court, Mr. Choudhury is unable to inform this court whether the answer given by the candidate securing the State highest marks against Question No. 17 was held to be correct or not by the concerned examiner in respect of the word “some”. 6. Very clearly, the Regulations above provides for re-examination of scripts only in three situations enumerated at (a), (b) and (c) above. It does not provide for re-evaluation of scripts, which if done, would amount to substituting the evaluation of the answers of a candidate by the court for that of the examiner. In the instant case, the appellant/writ petitioner is asking for additional marks in Social Science and English on ground (b) above, in that, the assessment of answers against Question No. 27 in Social Science and Question No. 17 in English have not been correctly assessed. A mere perusal of (b) above would go to show that reexamination of script is permissible if assessment of answers have been left out unevaluated. This is not the case here, inasmuch as, the answers to the aforesaid Question No. 27 in Social Science and Question No. 17 in English had been evaluated. It is well settled that change in marks on account of perceptional differences in assessment cannot be a ground for re-evaluation. Perceptional differences in assessment is possible between different Examiners and/or between the evaluation made by a particular Examiner and that of the candidate himself. It is well settled that change in marks on account of perceptional differences in assessment cannot be a ground for re-evaluation. Perceptional differences in assessment is possible between different Examiners and/or between the evaluation made by a particular Examiner and that of the candidate himself. This itself will not entitle a candidate to additional marks on the basis of his own perception. It is not for the court to substitute its own views and/or to allow a candidate to impose his own views over an assessment/evaluation made by an Examiner. It is not for this court to sit in judgment over the evaluation made by an Examiner, particularly in the absence of allegations of mala fide and vindictiveness. 7. In any view of the matter, request for re-evaluation is not permitted by the Regulations above. No answers, either in Social Science or in English, were left out unevaluated. Due marks were awarded on due evaluation made by the Examiner concerned. This court would be extremely slow to exercise powers of judicial review under article 226 of the Constitution in purely academic matters. In the fact situation of the case, this court finds that the relief sought for by the appellant cannot be permitted having regard to the law of the land and the provisions under the Regulations above. In the garb of re-examination, the appellant is actually seeking re-evaluation of Question No. 27 of the Social Science paper and Question No. 17 of the English paper. We are left without any option but to dismiss the present appeal and affirm the judgment and order dated 11.7.2016 passed by the learned Single Judge in the related WP(C) No. 7577/2015. Ordered accordingly. The parties are left to bear their own cost.