ORDER : 1. The prayer in the present writ petition is for issuance of the direction to the respondents to re-examine the answer books of the petitioner in the subject of Learning and Teaching, History and Drama and Art in Education by an independent, impartial, qualified and responsible examiner with a further prayer that he should be declared pass in the subject of Education of Contemporary India as having obtained 35 marks in the answer-book and to revise the result of the petitioner of B.Ed. Part-I Examination 2016 after re-examination of the aforesaid answer-books. 2. While praying for the said relief, learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he applied for revaluation in the subjects of Education of Contemporary India, Learning and Teaching as well as History. In the subject of Education of Contemporary India, he got 29 marks but after revaluation, he got 35 marks. In the subject of Learning and Teaching, he got 29 marks but after revaluation, his marks were reduced to 26. Similarly, in the subject of History, he got 13 marks prior to the revaluation but after revaluation, he was given only 04 marks. 3. The petitioner, however, was aggrieved with the fact that in the subject of History, he was given 0 marks in all four out of five questions which is unfair and cannot be sustained in view of it being a subjective paper. Secondly, the respondents have cut and crossed the answers given by the petitioner and awarded 0 marks. Thirdly, it is alleged that the petitioner had written abuses on the paper which is incorrect as the same was not written by him. Therefore, an enquiry should be initiated. 4. This Court in order to satisfy itself directed the respondents to produce the original answer-sheet of the subject History of the petitioner. A perusal of the same shows that in fact, the answers seems to have been crossed by the same pen, in which the answer is given. The lines made by the examiner in red ink is as a mark to show that it has been perused and seen by the examiner. This appears to be evident from the answer to the Question No. 2 wherein the petitioner has been awarded 04 marks and the said answer too has a line over it which again expresses as having been perused by the examiner. This appears to be evident from the answer to the Question No. 2 wherein the petitioner has been awarded 04 marks and the said answer too has a line over it which again expresses as having been perused by the examiner. Admittedly, the petitioner did not answer the Question Nos. 3 and 4. Thus, he was bound to get 0 mark. No doubt, there is a circle around abuses written on the side of the answer to the question No. 1 but the same does not mean that his answers have not been properly checked or that he has not given marks for the kind of answers that have been given by him. In fact, in revaluation of the paper of History, his marks stood reduced from 13 to 04 marks. The factual report placed on record as Annexure-R/1, report of the abusing words as Annexure-R/2 and Examiner’s report as Annexure-R/3 and Annexure-R/3A is an explanation in itself and there is no reason to disbelieve the same. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any cause or motive of malafide or enmity on account of which anyone should have written the abuses at the behest of the petitioner on the answer-book. Moreover, the marks received by him in the subject of Learning and Teaching as well as Education of Contemporary India too does not speak much or support the view of the petitioner that his answers deserve higher marks in the paper of History than received by him. 6. The argument raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that although, he had got 35 marks in his revaluation in the subject of Education and Contemporary India, the fresh mark-sheet has not been issued to him till date and the mark-sheet still reflects the original marks has no merit in view of the Rule 157-A(6)(B)(iii) of the Maharshi Dayanand Sarswati University Ordinance mentioning therein that in case, a candidate fails in the final examination and the change in the marks did not in any manner changes his position as fail, the original mark-sheet is not replaced and no fresh mark-sheet is issued. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. This fact is not disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner. The same reads as under :- “(iii) In case of candidate who applies for revaluation in the subject in which he was declared supplementary or fail, if after the revaluation the result remains fail or supplementary to supplementary, the result will be declared as no change.” 7. Further, learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to show any rule or regulation which may permit further revaluation after the revaluation has been done. 8. In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed being devoid of any merit. 9. The original answer-sheet produced by the learned counsel for the respondents is returned back in a sealed cover.