JUDGMENT : Arup Kumar Goswami, J. 1. The writ petition was heard yesterday and the case was fixed for delivery of order today. Accordingly, this order is delivered in open Court. 2. I had heard Mr. S. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner and Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned standing counsel, Board of Secondary Education, Assam (SEBA) appearing for the respondent Nos. 1 and 2. They are present today also at the time of delivery of judgment. None appears for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. Yesterday also, at the time of hearing of the writ petition, none had appeared for respondent Nos. 3 and 4. 3. By filing this application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner prays for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to re-evaluate the answer-scripts in the subjects of Social Science and General Science in respect of High School Leaving Certificate Examination (HSLC), 2016, by an expert and experienced teacher in the subjects concerned. 4. The case of the petitioner, as presented in the writ petition, is that she appeared in the HSLC examination in the year 2016 from Bhella Higher Secondary School, Barpeta bearing Roll-B-019 No. 0112. According to her, she was expecting that she would get a rank within 1st to 10th position. However, when the results were declared on 31.5.2016, she found that she was not in the merit list. She had secured 1st Division with distinction marks in aggregate. She got 96%, 98%, 98% and 98% in Assamese, English, Mathematics and Advanced Mathematics, respectively, but got only 92% and 80% in General Science and Social Science, respectively. 5. According to the petitioner, she ought to have been awarded 95% marks in Social Science and 98% in General Science. Not being satisfied with the award of marks in the aforesaid subjects, she made an application on 2.6.2016 for re-examination of answer-scripts. Subsequently, the result for re-examination was given to the petitioner indicating that there had been no change in the marks. With the aforesaid result of no change in the re-examination process, the petitioner again submitted an application on 21.9.2016 praying for photocopy of the answer-scripts of Social Science and General Science by depositing necessary fees, which were furnished later on. 6. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that in question Nos. With the aforesaid result of no change in the re-examination process, the petitioner again submitted an application on 21.9.2016 praying for photocopy of the answer-scripts of Social Science and General Science by depositing necessary fees, which were furnished later on. 6. In paragraph 10 of the writ petition the petitioner has stated that in question Nos. 10, 11, 15, 17, 18 and 34 in the subject of Social Science, marks were not awarded commensurate with the answers given. Likewise, in respect of General Science, due marks were not awarded in respect of question Nos. 19 and 20. It is pleaded that the award of marks did not conform to the Memorandum of Instructions given to the examiners. 7. The respondent Board had filed an affidavit. 8. The stand taken in the said affidavit is that the Memorandum of Instruction is supplied to the examiners at the time of evaluation of answer-scripts as guidelines to the answers and that the same do not constitute a complete answer to a question. The guidelines are given to the examiners so that a uniform evaluation can be done. These instructions do not override the personal assessment of the examiners/scrutinizers and head examiners, who are experienced teachers. According to the Regulations of the Board, re-examination means re-totaling of marks awarded by examiners and it does not mean re-evaluation of the scripts and/or; (b) assessment of answers which has/have been left out unevaluated and/or; (c) corrections of wrong entry of marks of any manner/nature. During re-examination of the answer-scripts of the petitioner, the examiners did not find any mistake and therefore, the original total marks obtained by the candidate remained unchanged. It is also stated that there may be some variation in standard of award of mark from examiner to examiner since subjectivity cannot be overruled in manual evaluation. It is pleaded that there was neither any negligence nor any malafide intention on the part of the examiner. It is also pleaded that if the marks awarded did not conform to the expectation of a candidate, the same could not afford as a ground for invoking jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for re-evaluation of answer scripts. 9. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marks awarded by the examiner for the specific questions as indicated by the petitioner are not in conformity with the Memorandum of Instruction. 9. Mr. Ali, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the marks awarded by the examiner for the specific questions as indicated by the petitioner are not in conformity with the Memorandum of Instruction. The petitioner is a meritorious student and because the examiners did not examine the papers diligently and did not award due marks, the same had cost the petitioner a rank and therefore, it is a fit case where this Court ought to direct SEBA to engage independent examinees) to re-evaluate the answers given by the petitioner in respect of specific questions in the two subjects to which reference is made in the writ petition. 10. Mr. Chutia has submitted that for the purpose of conducting examinations, there is a set of Regulations which is called the Board of Secondary Education Assam Regulations for conduct of Board's Examination, for short, the Regulations. He draws the attention of the Court to Regulation 48 of the Regulations, dealing with re-examination, to contend that the provision very specifically lays down that re-examination shall not mean re-evaluation of the scripts. The answer-scripts pertaining to General Science and Social Science of the petitioner were duly examined by engaging experts and the experts did not find any error in award of marks in the two subjects and thus, the marks awarded to the petitioner in the two subjects remained unchanged. It is further submitted by him that a candidate appearing in the HSLC examination cannot demand re-evaluation of answer-scripts. If reevaluation is permitted, the same will run counter to the Regulation and besides, it may lead to an unworkable and unmanageable situation and may cause havoc in the examination system as the possibility of candidates approaching the SEB A, having real or perceived grievance in respect of awarding of marks cannot be discounted. Accordingly, he submits that the writ petition deserves to be dismissed. 11. The submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the parties have been duly considered and I have also perused the materials on record. 12. At the very outset, it is placed on record that the Court is not unmindful of the fact that the Court is dealing with a student who is in her teens and who has faced the first major examination in her student life. 12. At the very outset, it is placed on record that the Court is not unmindful of the fact that the Court is dealing with a student who is in her teens and who has faced the first major examination in her student life. There cannot be any two opinions that in today's competitive world, results of an examination do play an important role in career prospects in the days to come. 13. The marks obtained by the petitioner in the HSLC examination will go to show that the petitioner had done exceptionally well in the examination. She may have harboured an expectation of securing a position in the merit list and also obtaining more marks in the subjects of General Science and Social Science. However, it must be conceded, as pleaded in the affidavit of SEBA, that there is always an element of subjectivity and evaluation of an answer, resulting in award of marks, may vary from examiner to examiner. The Memorandum of Instruction gives a broad overview so that variations are kept to the minimum so as to ensure that there is some consistency. The Memorandum, however, does not totally do away with the individual assessment of the examiner. 14. Now the question is whether the respondent SEBA can be directed to re-evaluate the answer-scripts. 15. Clause 48 of the Regulations reads as follows: "Re-Examination: A candidate may apply for re-examination of scripts to a maximum of 5 papers or three subjects by paying necessary fees as determined by the Board and within such time as fixed by the Board from time to time. Provided that- (a) Re-examination shall not mean re-evaluation of the scripts. Re-examination shall consist of re-totaling of marks awarded by examiners and/or; (b) Assessment of answers which has/have been left out unevaluated and/or; (c) Corrections of wrong entry of marks of any manner/nature." 16. A perusal of the provisions contained in Clause 48 would go to show that the Regulations do not provide for re-evaluation of the answer-scripts and re-examination would be limited to the situations as envisaged therein. 17. If an examination is governed by a set of Regulations, as in the instant case, and if such Regulations bar re-evaluation of answer-scripts, the examinee will not be entitled in law to demand re-evaluation of answer-scripts. 18. 17. If an examination is governed by a set of Regulations, as in the instant case, and if such Regulations bar re-evaluation of answer-scripts, the examinee will not be entitled in law to demand re-evaluation of answer-scripts. 18. Having regard to Clause 48 of the Regulations, it is clear that re-examination will not embrace within its fold re-evaluation of the answer-scripts and therefore, I am of the considered opinion that the prayer of the petitioner for re-evaluation of the answer-scripts of the subject of Social Science and General Science by engaging experts cannot be acceded to. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. No cost. Petition Dismissed.