JUDGMENT : ARUN BHANSALI, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner seeking following directions: "(i) The respondent no.2 may kindly be directed to quash the marks awarded in M.Com.(Final) and reevaluation of Advanced Costing Problems. (ii) The respondent no.2 may kindly be directed to constitute a committee to re-check the answer copy of the petitioner of Advanced Costing Problems. (iii) The respondent no.2 may kindly be directed to issue the fresh mark sheet by awarding the appropriate marks as per the answers and solutions of the questions. (iv) Any other appropriate writ, order or direction which this Hon'ble Court deems just and proper may kindly be passed in favour of the petitioner." 2. The petitioner appeared in M.Com. (Final) examination, result whereof was declared in the month of July, 2013; feeling dissatisfied, the petitioner applied for re-evaluation in the subject 'Advanced Costing Problems', wherein, the petitioner secured 48 marks out of 100, after re-evaluation the marks were increased to 55. Still dissatisfied with the award of marks even on reevaluation, the petitioner sought copy of the answer sheet under Right to Information Act. Based on the copy of answer sheet supplied by the respondent, submission has been made that the petitioner had given answers, which are similar to the contents of books of famous authors and, therefore, the petitioner should have been awarded more marks and based on the said submission, the reliefs, as noticed hereinbefore, have been claimed. 3. It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that a bare look at the answer sheet (Annex.4) would reveal that the petitioner had attempted five questions and was awarded low marks. With reference to various pages of the answer sheet, it was sought to be submitted that though the answer to a particular question runs into 3-4 pages, however, marks have been awarded on second page of the answer, which indicates that even the entire answer has not been gone through before awarding the marks and, therefore, the original marks and the marks on re-evaluation cannot be said to be justified. 4. Further submissions were made that the petitioner was awarded inadequate marks despite correctly answering the question and, therefore, the answer sheet is required to be reexamined by a third examiner to be appointed by this Court. 5. 4. Further submissions were made that the petitioner was awarded inadequate marks despite correctly answering the question and, therefore, the answer sheet is required to be reexamined by a third examiner to be appointed by this Court. 5. Reliance was placed on the judgment of this court in Kuntal Choudhary v. Board of Secondary Education & Anr. : S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.1979/2014 decided on 4/11/2015 and Bhavya Jain v. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education : Writ Petition No.11525/2013 decided on 10/8/2015 by Madhya Pradesh High Court. 6. Learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submitted that as per the provisions of Ordinance 157, the answer sheet of the petitioner was re-evaluated and marks were enhanced from 48 to 55. There is no provision in the Ordinance for thereafter getting the copy re-checked from a third examiner and, therefore, the petitioner has no case. 7. Further submissions were made that despite copy being examined by two examiners, one originally and second on reevaluation, there is not much difference in the marks and the petitioner based on the submissions regarding award of low marks cannot seek directions from this Court for getting the copy rechecked by a third examiner and, therefore, the petition deserves to be dismissed. 8. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and have perused the material available on record. 9. The petitioner was initially awarded 48 marks and on reevaluation he was awarded 55 marks. A look at the answer sheet produced by the petitioner as Annex.4 would reveal that the petitioner was awarded marks for all the questions which he had attempted. Merely because in certain questions the original examiner awarded marks not on the page where the answer ended but in-between the said answer and on re-evaluation again, the second examiner also awarded marks at the same place where the original examiner had awarded marks, it cannot be said that the answer was not evaluated fully and marks were awarded without going through the whole answer. 10. 10. So far as the prayers made regarding getting the copy rechecked and award of marks and its quantum are concerned, based on the provisions of the University Ordinance, the reevaluation has already been done and the marks from 48 to 55 have already been enhanced, the petitioner being still not satisfied cannot seek further re-evaluation by a third examiner without making out a case in this regard. 11. So far as the judgment in the case of Kuntal Choudhary (supra) is concerned, in the said case there was no provision for re-evaluation and based on the answer sheets produced before the Court, it was found that several questions despite having been attempted by the student, no marks were awarded and in those circumstances, this Court directed re-evaluation of the answer sheet, despite the fact that there was no such provision. 12. Similarly, in the case of Bhavya Jain (supra) there was no provision for re-evaluation and it was a case of re-totaling only, which was not found sufficient by the Court. However, in the present case re-evaluation by second examiner has already taken place and, therefore, the said judgment has no application to the facts of the present case. 13. On the submissions made by learned counsel for the petitioner also, no case is made out regarding grant of lower marks. The examiners being experts in their field have evaluated the answer sheet and once the answer sheet has been evaluated by two examiners awarding 48 and 55 marks, respectively, no case is made out for referring the same to the third examiner on the grounds stated in the writ petition and submissions noticed hereinbefore. 14. In view of the above discussion, there is no substance in the writ petition and the same is, therefore, dismissed.