JUDGMENT : A.S. BOPANNA, J. 1. Heard Mr. H. Das, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. T.C. Chutia, learned Senior Government Advocate, Assam for Respondent No.1 and 2, and Ms. P. Chakraborty, learned Standing Counsel, Education (Secondary) Department for Respondent No.4. 2. The appellant herein is assailing the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P.(C) No.7235/2016. 3. The matter herein is in narrow campus. The appellant was before the learned Single Judge contending that the evaluation of the General Science Paper, insofar as it relates to Questions No.4, 5, 29, 33 and 35 are concerned, is not appropriate and, therefore, rechecking of the answer script of the appellant was ordered. 4. During the pendency of the writ petition, Shri Chutia, learned counsel for the SEBA, having secured instructions and based on rechecking done, had indicated that the appellant is entitled to one(1) mark each in respect of Questions No.4, 29 and 35, which could be awarded to the appellant herein. In view of the same, the learned Single Judge having accepted the same has disposed of the writ petition. 5. The petitioner, however, being dissatisfied insofar as Questions No.5 and 33 that appropriate marks had not been assigned, is before this Court in this appeal. 6. In the course of consideration, at the outset, we notice that insofar as Question No.33, relating to which appellant is making a grievance, evaluation has been made and out of five(5) marks allotted, the examiner has awarded three(3) marks. Since the Question No.3 is not objective and the answer as given has been evaluated and three(3) marks has been assigned, this Court would not be justified in sitting in appeal as an expert when the expert in the field has evaluated and assigned the mark. Insofar as Question No.5 is concerned, it is an objective type of question and the appellant herein has indicated (d) as the correct answer. The memorandum of instructions at Annexure-8 provides key answers to objective type questions and it is noticed that the key answer provided as correct answer to Question No.5 is (d) i.e. 1:v 2. Since the appellant has indicated the correct option, he would be entitled to one(1) mark. 7. The memorandum of instructions at Annexure-8 provides key answers to objective type questions and it is noticed that the key answer provided as correct answer to Question No.5 is (d) i.e. 1:v 2. Since the appellant has indicated the correct option, he would be entitled to one(1) mark. 7. Though that is the position, learned Standing Counsel, SEBA, with reference to the appeal papers pointed out that in respect of Question No.28, though the maximum mark assigned is three(3), the appellant has been given four(4) marks, while in respect of Question No.30, though the allotted mark is three(3), he has been awarded five(5) marks. Hence, it is pointed out that in respect of Questions No.28 and 30, since the marks given to the appellant is more than the allotted marks, even if the mark in respect of Question No.5 is not allotted at this stage, the appellant cannot claim to be aggrieved. 8. In that view of the matter, we are of the opinion that in the matter of the present nature, where no prejudice is caused to the appellant since ultimately the mark though not allotted to a right answer, the same is balanced as additional marks had been granted in respect of the Question Nos.28 and 30, we find it appropriate that the instant matter is one wherein the discretion of the Court is not required to be exercised. Hence, on over all consideration of the matter, we are of the opinion that the order dated 14.12.2018 passed by the learned Single Judge does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the appeal is disposed of.