JUDGMENT : This writ petition is filed by the petitioner a student of MS-Orthopaedics course at MES Medical College, Malappuram, i.e., the 7th respondent, seeking to quash Ext.P11 order passed by the Registrar of the 1st respondent University dated 18.09.2019, holding that since the average of four evaluations is taken as final mark, individual variation of marks between different examiners in each question is not to be considered usually, unless under exceptional circumstances, and since the case on hand does not come under exceptional circumstances, a fresh valuation is not recommended. As per the University regulations, there is no provision of grace mark to Post Graduate students, and therefore, the request of the petitioner cannot be considered favourably, and for other related and consequential reliefs. Brief material facts for the disposal of the writ petition are as follows: 2. Petitioner is enrolled for the MS-Orthopaedics course at the 7th respondent College, affiliated to the 1st respondent University. During April, 2019, petitioner wrote the Medical Post Graduate Degree examination. On 25.06.2019, the results of the examination were released and the petitioner has failed in the examinations by 5 marks out of a total of 400 marks. Thereupon, petitioner applied for and obtained his score cards and reviewed the scores, and it was realized by the petitioner that there are multiple inadequacies and discrepancies in the evaluation process. 3. Thereupon, on 19.08.2019, petitioner has submitted Ext.P10 representation dated 18.08.2019. However, declining the relief sought for by the petitioner, Ext.P11 order is passed. The thrust of the contention advanced by the petitioner is that, there is tremendous variation between the marks awarded by different evaluators for the same paper and in some cases, even for the same question in a paper. As per Ext.P6 Examination Manual of the 1st respondent, for all examinations where a paper is marked by only two evaluators, if the difference between the marks awarded in the two valuations is more than 15% of the maximum marks, a third valuation is automatically provided, as long as the candidate has secured at least 35% marks in any of the evaluations. 4. 4. The case put forth by the petitioner is that, although this provision of the Examination Manual is inapplicable in cases where there are more than two evaluators for a Paper, it is instructive that the 1st respondent itself has kept 15% of the maximum marks as the benchmark, thus suggesting that the acceptable range of variation between different evaluations of the same Paper can only be up to 15% of the maximum marks. However, the variations between the marks awarded to the petitioner by different evaluators exceed 15% at multiple instances. 5. Further, for Paper-II, both the 2nd and 3rd evaluators have granted exactly 5 out of 10 marks for every single short-answer question, and it is highly unlikely that any student would score exactly 5 out of 10 marks for every 10-marks question. It is also the case of the petitioner that, petitioner himself realizes that for one of these questions, he should have been awarded lower than 5 marks since his answer was largely incorrect and could not have been awarded 5 marks. Therefore, the sum and substance of the contention put forth by the petitioner is that, it is clearly evident that, without any application of mind, two of the evaluators have awarded 5 out of 10 marks for every single 10-mark question. 6. So also, for one of the question in Paper-IV, two of the evaluators granted 1 and 2 marks respectively to the answer. However, the other two evaluators granted zero marks. Yet another contention advanced is that, for Paper-III, petitioner received 54.25 marks which is shown as only 54 marks in the final result. The rounding down of the marks obtained by the petitioner in Paper-III is illegal and contrary to the Rules of the 1st respondent, and also violates the law laid down by this Court, including Ext.P9 judgment. According to learned counsel for the petitioner, the exceptional circumstances pointed out in Ext.P10 were not taken into account by the University while passing Ext.P11 order, which is also against the law laid down by this Court in Ext.P9 judgment. 7. The 1st respondent University has filed a detailed statement, justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P11 order. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 9. 7. The 1st respondent University has filed a detailed statement, justifying the stand adopted in Ext.P11 order. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Standing Counsel appearing for the University, and perused the pleadings and the documents on record. 9. The sole question to be considered is, whether any manner of interference is warranted to Ext.P11 order passed by the University. It is clear from the findings rendered that petitioner secured 217 marks out of 400 in the practical part, and has secured 195 marks out of 400 in theory part and failed due to a shortage of 5 marks for theory. Petitioner has secured 46, 53, 54 and 42 marks respectively for the subjects Orthopaedics Papers I to IV. He also secured 37, 43, 50 and 52 marks respectively for first to fourth evaluations in the Paper-I, and awarded with average 46 marks. Petitioner also secured 52, 53, 54 and 52 marks respectively for first to fourth evaluations in Paper-II, and awarded with the average 53 marks. He has secured 47, 58, 55 and 57 marks respectively for first to fourth evaluations in Paper-III and awarded with the average 54 marks. 10. The case put forth by the petitioner is that, in Paper-I, he has 15 marks less as corrected by one of the examiners and other 2 examiners gave 50 plus marks. In Paper-II, the examiners awarded only minimum marks, and in Paper-III, he has 11 marks less as corrected by one of the examiners. It was accordingly that he requested for revaluation of his papers. The Board for Adjudication for Students Grievances has considered the case put forth by the petitioner and has arrived at a finding that, since the average of four evaluations is taken as final mark, individual variation of marks between different examiners in each question is not to be considered usually, unless under exceptional circumstances. According to the evaluators, there is no exceptional circumstances in the case projected by the petitioner and the entire aspects put forth by the petitioner were also taken into account. 11. According to the evaluators, there is no exceptional circumstances in the case projected by the petitioner and the entire aspects put forth by the petitioner were also taken into account. 11. In my considered opinion, the marks were awarded by the evaluators to the petitioner on the basis of the perception achieved by each of the evaluators, and one may find the answers of the petitioner not at all correct, and may decide not to give any marks, another may find that the answers given by the petitioner are somewhat correct, and yet another may find the answers given by the petitioner is partly correct, apply a tinge of sympathy and provide some marks, from out of the total marks provided for each of the answers. To put it otherwise, the ultimate analysis differs from person to person depending on their personal, social and academic pursuits. It is a thought process, and depending on the individuals it varies, and one may require absolute perfection for giving marks, while another may not think in absolute terms. Perception also has idealism, academics, philosophy and wisdom, and they also differs from individual to individual. The question is whether this Court is expected to sit over such objective or subjective assessments made by the evaluators. In my considered opinion, definitely not, since it is purely an academic matter. Petitioner has no case that there is any malafide action on the part of the evaluators or the University, or they are nurturing any ill-will against the petitioner. Under normal circumstances, this Court can only visualize and legally presume that the evaluators, who are teachers, will not indulge in any irregular or irrational activity while valuing or re-valuing the papers. I also do not think petitioner has established any exceptional circumstances for revaluation of the papers, which was clearly found out by the Board for Adjudication for Students Grievances, as is decipherable from Ext.P11 communication issued by the Registrar, and in that view of the matter, petitioner is not entitled to get any relief in that regard. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the University admitted that the rounding of 54.25 marks in Paper-III to a lower denomination of 54 marks is not correct, since as the law existed then, the mark ought to have been rounded off to the next higher denomination. However, the learned Standing Counsel for the University admitted that the rounding of 54.25 marks in Paper-III to a lower denomination of 54 marks is not correct, since as the law existed then, the mark ought to have been rounded off to the next higher denomination. Therefore, the finding rendered by the Board for Adjudication and communicated by the Registrar as per Ext.P11 in that regard is not legally correct. In all other respects, I do not think petitioner has made out any case, justifying interference of this Court. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed of, directing the respondent University to round off the 54.25 marks secured by the petitioner to 55 marks for Paper-III, and issue a mark list accordingly.