JUDGMENT : Dinesh Maheshwari, J. 1. This intra-court appeal is directed against the order dated 05.02.2018 in W.P. No.4756 of 2018, whereby a learned Single Judge of this Court has rejected the prayer of the petitioner-appellant for yet another evaluation of her answer script of Anatomy Paper-II, where she could not get the requisite pass marks even after three evaluations. 2. The relevant background aspects of the matter, put in a nutshell, are that the petitioner-appellant, a student of First year MBBS Course, had appeared in Phase I examination during the month of June 2017 and passed in one subject out of three. Thereafter, she again appeared in the examination held in the month of October 2017 where she cleared another paper, but failed in Anatomy subject. It is noticed that as regards Anatomy Paper-II, the first evaluator awarded her 54 marks out of 100, but then, the second evaluator awarded 33 marks out of 100; and for the variation in the two evaluations being more than 15%, the answer script was sent to the third evaluator, who awarded 22.5 marks out of 100. That being the position, the average of the best of the two evaluations was taken into consideration, that is, the average of the marks awarded in the first and second evaluations which, obviously, resulted in the petitioner-appellant getting less than the requisite pass marks. 3. Having failed to secure the minimum pass marks, the petitioner-appellant preferred the writ petition leading to this appeal. It was urged before the learned Single Judge that injustice was meted out to the petitioner-appellant and she got no benefit of the third evaluation. It was suggested that in the given circumstances, a fresh evaluation ought to be provided so as to enable the petitioner-appellant to clear the said paper. 4. The learned Single Judge found the submissions and the prayer made on behalf of the petitioner-appellant wholly without substance; and after reference to the procedure for re-evaluation as contained in the relevant Ordinance, the learned Single Judge found no case for interference, while also observing that the manner of award of marks by the particular evaluator cannot be the subject matter of judgment by the Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. While holding that there had been no infraction of the Ordinance governing the procedure for re-evaluation, the learned Single Judge concluded that the Court cannot direct the respondent University to conduct a fourth or fresh evaluation of the answer script. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would argue that on the facts and circumstances of the case, apparently the third evaluation had turned out to be an empty formality and in view of the substantial variation of marks awarded by different evaluators, the matter ought to be referred to another independent evaluator. The submissions remain totally bereft of substance. 6. It is not the case of the petitioner-appellant that the process of evaluation of the answer script as taken up by the respondent University suffers from violation or noncompliance of any of the provisions governing such evaluation. The process does not appear to be suffering from any irrationality or unreasonableness either. When the difference between the first two evaluations had been more than 15%, the answer script was sent to the third evaluator, who awarded much lower marks than the lowest of the first two. As per the rules governing the matter, the average of the best of the two evaluations was taken into consideration which was, obviously, the average of the marks awarded in the first two evaluations. We are unable to find any illegality or unreasonableness in the procedure adopted by the University. 7. The prayer for yet another evaluation does not stand supported by any of the rules governing such evaluations, nor even stand to any logic. The learned Single Judge, in our view, has rightly rejected the baseless writ petition filed by the petitioner-appellant and this appeal does not merit admission. 8. The appeal stands dismissed summarily.