ORDER : 1. The petitioner is a student who appeared in 12th examination conducted by the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education. She secured distinction in all the subjects and secured 91 marks in English (General) and 88 = 63 + 25 in Physics. She has filed this writ petition claiming that she is entitled for re-evaluation in Physics as well as in English (General). 2. Mr. Parag Kotecha, learned counsel for the petitioner, would submit that the petitioner is an exceptionally meritorious student and she is entitled for re-evaluation in English (General) and Physics, as she has got the copies of answer sheets under the Right to Information Act, 2005, and got them examined by the subject experts in which she has secured 63 out of 75 in Physics Theory examination and therefore she is clearly entitled for re-evaluation for which appropriate writ be issued against the respondents. 3. Mr. Alok Bakshi, learned counsel appearing for the respondent Board, would oppose and submit that the petitioner's answer papers have been examined correctly strictly in accordance with the regulations of the Chhattisgarh Board of Secondary Education. The petitioner has not applied for re-evaluation within 15 days form the date of declaration of result, as on 27-4-2017 the result has been declared and she applied for re-evaluation on 15-9-2017. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The re-evaluation procedure has been indicated by the Board in its instructions dated 3-1-2017 in which clause 3 is pertinent so far as the case of the petitioner is concerned. Clause 3 of the re-evaluation procedure is as follows: - ^^3- vH;kFkhZ ftl fo"k; esa iw.kkZad 0 ls 20 izfr'kr rd izkIrkad ,oa 80 ls vf/kd izkIrkad gkasxs ml fo"k; esa Nk= dsoy iquxZ.kuk gsrq vkosnu izLrqr djkus dh ik=rk gksxhA fdUrq iquewZY;kadu djkus dh ik=rk ugha gksxhA^^ 6. The aforesaid clause clearly provides that if a candidate obtains more than 80% marks in a subject, he will not be entitled for re-evaluation and only entitled for recalculation. Now, the question is whether in a case where re-evaluation is prohibited, re-evaluation can be directed by the Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. Now, the question is whether in a case where re-evaluation is prohibited, re-evaluation can be directed by the Court in exercise of extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 7. In a recent decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Ran Vijay Singh and others v. State of U.P. and others AIR 2018 SC 52 , the Supreme Court has revisited the law and laid down the law as under:- “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: (i) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the re-evaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; (ii) If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then the Court may permit reevaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; (iii) The Court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate – it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics; (iv) The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and (v) In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” 8. In the aforesaid judgment, the Supreme Court has clearly held that if the statutory rules or regulations do not permit re-evaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets, the Court may permit re-evaluation or scrutiny only if it is demonstrated very clearly, without any “inferential process of reasoning or by a process of rationalisation” and only in rare or exceptional cases that a material error has been committed. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case after noticing the parameters for directing re-evaluation, it is quite vivid that in the present case, the petitioner having secured more than 80% of marks in Physics and English (General), re-evaluation is not permitted. 9. Reverting to the facts of the present case after noticing the parameters for directing re-evaluation, it is quite vivid that in the present case, the petitioner having secured more than 80% of marks in Physics and English (General), re-evaluation is not permitted. As per the law laid down in Ran Vijay Singh (supra), in case reevaluation is clearly prohibited by regulations/instructions of the Board, the Court would not like to direct re-evaluation particularly when the petitioner has not made out a rare or exceptional case highlighting that material error has been committed. Though copies of answer sheets have been served to the petitioner under the Right to Information Act, 2005, but except getting the same examined by the subject valuer and stating that she has secured 11 marks more in Physics, no rare or exceptional case has been brought out by the petitioner by indicating material error in the answer sheets for directing re-evaluation. 10. At this stage, it would be further pertinent to mention the unhappiness expressed by the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra) over the interference by the Courts in the result of examinations despite of its several pronouncements. The Supreme Court observed as under:- “32. It is rather unfortunate that despite several decisions of this Court, some of which have been discussed above, there is interference by the Courts in the result of examinations. This places the examination authorities in an unenviable position where they are under scrutiny and not the candidates. Additionally, a massive and sometimes prolonged examination exercise concludes with an air of uncertainty. While there is no doubt that candidates put in a tremendous effort in preparing for an examination, it must not be forgotten that even the examination authorities put in equally great efforts to successfully conduct an examination. The enormity of the task might reveal some lapse at a later stage, but the Court must consider the internal checks and balances put in place by the examination authorities before interfering with the efforts put in by the candidates who have successfully participated in the examination and the examination authorities.” 11. In view of the above, the petitioner has failed to make a rare and exceptional case as to make interference and to direct for reevaluation. 12. In view of the above, the petitioner has failed to make a rare and exceptional case as to make interference and to direct for reevaluation. 12. As a fallout and consequence of the aforesaid discussion, the writ petition is liable to be and is hereby dismissed leaving the parties to bear their own costs.