JUDGMENT Anil Kumar, J. Heard Sri Sanjay Kumar Singh, learned counsel for petitioner, Sri Pankaj Nath, learned State counsel and perused the record. 2. Facts in brief of the present case are that petitioner has appeared in the High School Examination conducted by U.P. High School and Intermediate Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Allahabad with Roll No. 1444771 as a regular student of Baratilal Ganga Ram Saraswati Vidya Mandir Inter College, Lalganj, Raibareli. After declaration of the result said examination, marks-sheet has been issued to the petitioner as annexed as Annexure No. 1 to the writ petition. 3. As per the case of the petitioner, the marks awarded to him in Hindi, English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science & Computer are less that the marks should be given to him. 4. So, on 23.05.2016, petitioner filed an application for scrutiny and deposited Rs. 600/- for all the six subjects. Thereafter on 25.05.2016, he filed an application under Right to Information Act for inspection of his answer copies for the abovenoted subjects from the prescribed authority. In pursuant to the same on 15.09.2016, the Additional Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, U.P., Allahabad issued a letter to the petitioner to appear on 30.09.2016 for inspection of his answer-copies 5. On 30.09.2016, petitioner inspected his answer-copies and came to the knowledge that due to some laches and irregularities while evaluating the answer copies, marks were less awarded to him. 6. Accordingly, he submitted an application before the respondent No. 2 to rectify the same, when no heed has been paid, the petitioner approached this Court by filing present writ petition for redresal of his grievances with the main prayer that respondent No. 2 may be directed to carry out the rectifications in the answer copies of all the six subjects of the petitioner and according award appropriate marks to him. 7. On 17.11.2016, this Court has passed an order: - "Notice on behalf of respondent nos.1 to 3 has been accepted by the office of learned Chief Standing Counsel. Issue notice to respondent no.4, returnable at an early date. Petitioner to take steps within a week. The petitioner had appeared in the High School Examination, 2016 conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad. Issue notice to respondent no.4, returnable at an early date. Petitioner to take steps within a week. The petitioner had appeared in the High School Examination, 2016 conducted by U.P. Board of High School and Intermediate Education, Allahabad. The mark-sheet of the petitioner shows that he passed the said examination, however, it has been stated by the learned counsel for the petitioner that various discrepancies, as detailed in para 9 of the writ petition, were noticed when the answer books were shown to the petitioner under Right to Information Act. Ordinarily, there being no provision for re-evaluation of the answer books, no interference by this Court in this matter is permissible, however, on the emphasis of the learned counsel for the petitioner, it is directed that the petitioner shall deposit a sum of Rs. 30,000 (Rs. Thirty Thousand) before the registry of this Court within a week and in case the said amount is deposited by the petitioner, learned Standing Counsel shall produce the answer books if they are still preserved, the details which have been given in para 9 of the writ petition, on the next date. The Court proposes to get the answer books re-evaluated by an independent examiner and in case of no change in the marks after re-evaluation, the amount deposited by the petitioner under this order shall be forfeited or utilized in making payment to the independent examiner to be appointed by this Court for re-valuating the answer books. List this case on 28.11.2016 as fresh." 8. In pursuance to the said order, the petitioner deposited Rs. 30,000/- in the Registry of this Court on 23.11.2016. 9. On 08.12.2016, this Court has passed an order, on reproduction reads as under: - "Pursuant to order dated dated 17.11.2016, Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel for the State has produced answer books of the petitioner for Board Examinations-2016. The said answer books are kept in a sealed cover. The Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to keep the said sealed cover in his personal custody. The Principal, Government Jubilee Inter College, Lucknow is requested to get the answer books of the petitioner re-evaluated by the teachers of the subject concerned, who are available in his college. In case some teachers are not available, he shall seek help of any teacher working in some other Government Inter College in Lucknow. The Principal, Government Jubilee Inter College, Lucknow is requested to get the answer books of the petitioner re-evaluated by the teachers of the subject concerned, who are available in his college. In case some teachers are not available, he shall seek help of any teacher working in some other Government Inter College in Lucknow. Sri Pankaj Patel, learned Additional Chief Standing Counsel shall communicate this order to the Principal, Government Jubilee Inter College, Lucknow and shall also coordinate between the Principal and the Senior Registrar, who shall handover the answer books of the petitioner to the Principal, Government Jubilee Inter College in his presence. After getting the answer books re-evaluated within ten days from the date they are received by the Principal, Government Jubilee Inter College, Lucknow, answer books as also the marks which may be awarded on re-evaluation by the examiners to be appointed by the Principal shall be submitted in a sealed cover before the Senior Registrar which shall be placed on record of this Court by Senior Registrar on the next date. List this case on 22.12.2016 as fresh. Learned counsel for the petitioner shall be at liberty to make a mention for the matter being taken up out of turn. When the case is next listed, name of Sri Pankaj Patel shall be shown as counsel for the respondents." 10. In pursuant to abovesaid direction, the Principal, Jubilee Inter college, Lucknow in his presence has re-evaluated the answer copies of the petitioner by the appropriate teachers. 11. Answer copies have been produced before this Court in a seal cover by the Registrar of this Court and the same is seen by the court as well as learned counsel for the parties. 12. A query has been put to learned counsel for petitioner whether there is any provisions, rules or regulations which governs the field for reevaluation. 13. Learned counsel for petitioner after arguing at some length submits that there is no rules and regulations under the U.P. Intermediate Education Act by which re-evaluation of the answer copies can be done. 14. As per the law on the the subject is that in the absence of any provisions under the statute or statutory regulations the Court should not generally direct re-evaluation. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. 14. As per the law on the the subject is that in the absence of any provisions under the statute or statutory regulations the Court should not generally direct re-evaluation. Hon'ble the Apex Court in the case of Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission Vs. Mukesh Thakur and another (2010) 6 SCC 759 , has held as under: - Para - 24. The issue of re-evaluation of answer book is no more res integra. This issue was considered at length by this Court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. Vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc.etc. AIR 1984 SC 1543 , wherein this Court rejected the contention that in absence of provision for re-evaluation, a direction to this effect can be issued by the Court. The Court further held that even the policy decision incorporated in the Rules/Regulations not providing for rechecking/verification/re-evaluation cannot be challenged unless there are grounds to show that the policy itself is in violation of some statutory provision. The Court held as under: "14..........It is exclusively within the province of the legislature and its delegate to determine, as a matter of policy, how the provisions of the Statute can best be implemented and what measures, substantive as well as procedural would have to be incorporated in the rules or regulations for the efficacious achievement of the objects and purposes of the Act... 16...........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 will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any draw-backs 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........." Para - 25. This view has been approved and relied upon and re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors, AIR 2004 SC 4116 observing as under: "7.......Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re- evaluation of his answer-book. This view has been approved and relied upon and re-iterated by this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors, AIR 2004 SC 4116 observing as under: "7.......Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re- evaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of 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 marks." (emphasis added)" A similar view has been reiterated in Dr. Muneeb Ul Rehman Haroon & Ors. Vs. Government of Jammu & Kashmir State & Ors. AIR 1984 SC 1585 ; Board of Secondary Education Vs. Pravas Ranjan Panda & Anr. (2004) 13 SCC 383 ; President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & Anr. Vs. D. Suvankar & Anr. (2007) 1 SCC 603 ; The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education Vs. Ayan Das & Ors. AIR 2007 SC 3098 ; and Sahiti & Ors. Vs. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences & Ors. (2009) 1 SCC 599 . 15. Further, a Division Bench of this Court in the case of Vice-Chancellor, Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University, Jaunpur and others Vs. Smt. Shashikala and another [2009(2) ESC 1223 (All)(DB)] has held as under: - "Para - 12 - Normally, in the absence of any provision for revaluation of the answerbooks in the relevant Rules etc., the Court will not give any direction for revaluation of the answerbooks. Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions: - (I) Maharasthra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another Vs. Partosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543 (paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29) (II) Kshitiji Singh Vs. Joint Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad and others, 2001 (3) AWC 2191 (paragraph 7). Reference in this regard may be made to the following decisions: - (I) Maharasthra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another Vs. Partosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth etc., AIR 1984 SC 1543 (paragraphs 25, 26, 27, 28 and 29) (II) Kshitiji Singh Vs. Joint Secretary Central Board of Secondary Education, Allahabad and others, 2001 (3) AWC 2191 (paragraph 7). (III) Anuj Gupta (Minor) Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education, Delhi through its Secretary and another, (2003) 1 UPLBEC 44 (paragraphs 9, 10, 11, 12 and 13). Para 13 - However, there may be cases where glaring errors are found in the answerbook indicating that the examiner has not at all applied his mind while evaluating the answerbook, i.e. there has been total non-application of mind while evaluating the answerbook. Such cases will be very rare and exceptional. In such cases, the Court may direct for revaluation of the answerbook of a candidate. This is because if the evaluation is done by the examiner without application of his mind and glaring errors are found in the answerbook marking it evident that the examiner has not at all applied his mind while evaluating the answerbook, i.e., there has been total non-application of mind while evaluating the answerbook, then such a case will be treated to be a case of non-evaluation of the answerbook and direction for revaluation will be deemed to be direction for evaluation of the answerbook, and not its revaluation." 16. Accordingly, once in the rules and regulations there is no provision of re-evaluation, the court should not allow for re-evaluation of the answer copies of the student who appeared in the examination. However, in the instant matter initially this Court has passed an order dated 17.11.2016 thereby directing the petitioner to deposit Rs. 30,000/- before the Registry of this Court then the answer copies shall be re-evaluated, the same has been deposited by the petitioner and on 23.11.2016, the court has directed that petitioner's answer book should be re-evaluated in the presence of Principal, Government Jubilee Inter College, Lucknow. 17. Accordingly, Principal, Government Jubilee Inter College, Lucknow got the answer copies of the petitioners re-evaluated in his presence and the marks which are obtained by the petitioner after re-evaluation are as under:- Subject Marks obtained before re-evaluation Marks obtained after re-evaluation English 55 58 Mathematics 55 44 Science 59 63 Social Science 55 55 Computer 55 62 18. 17. Accordingly, Principal, Government Jubilee Inter College, Lucknow got the answer copies of the petitioners re-evaluated in his presence and the marks which are obtained by the petitioner after re-evaluation are as under:- Subject Marks obtained before re-evaluation Marks obtained after re-evaluation English 55 58 Mathematics 55 44 Science 59 63 Social Science 55 55 Computer 55 62 18. Once the re-evaluation has been done in the instant matter on the direction given by the Court, so it will be appropriate that original marks-sheet issued to the petitioner should be corrected and fresh marks-sheet should be issued according to the marks he bas obtained after re-evaluataion. 19. For the foregoing reasons, respondent No. 2/Secretary, High Secondary Education, U.P., Allahabad is directed to issue corrected/fresh marks-sheet on the basis of marks obtained by the petitioner after re-evaluation in all six subjects i.e. Hindi, English, Mathematics, Science, Social Science & Computer. 20. The answer copies have been again put in the seal cover and Senior Registrar of this Court is directed to return the answer-copies of the petitioner to the appropriate authority/respondent No. 2 for further action. 21. However, the order passed today cannot be a judicial precedent in other matter in future. 22. In view of the order dated 17.11.2016 passed by this Court earlier, Senior Registrar is directed to refund Rs. 30,000/- which has been deposited by the petitioner for the purpose of re-evaluation. 23. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of.