JUDGMENT Pradeep Singh Yerur, J. - The petitioners are the students pursuing Pharma D. Course (Doctor of Pharmacy) have approached this Court by way of writ, inter alia, for issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the evaluation of the respondent No.1 - University vide Annexures-B, C and D, respectively, as illegal and have also sought for a writ of mandamus for a direction to the respondent No.1 - University to forthwith conduct fresh practical examination for the petitioners and to declare the result of the respondents. 2. The petitioners are the students of respondent No.2 College, who are pursuing their Pharma D Course and have appeared for the V year Pharma D examinations and in the said examination, the petitioners were unsuccessful and could not score passing marks though they have passed in all other papers, 3. It is their grievance that in the V year practical paper and project work, the petitioner No.1 was awarded 17 out of 100 marks, petitioner No.2 was awarded 25 out of 100 marks and petitioner No.3 was awarded 18 out of 100 marks. 4. The petitioners urge before this Court that the marks awarded in the project work practical paper is shocking, disproportionate to the performance in the practical paper comprising thesis / Viva-voce. 5. It is the case of the petitioners that as per Regulations of the University separate marks ought to have been awarded to the theory / Viva-voce course and they are of the strong belief that no separate marks were awarded for thesis and only Viva-voce course has been declared. It is their further contention that the petitioner No.1 had done her thesis in a group where other three students have performed project work in a single project and those three students prepared common dissertation / thesis and it is her case that when all the three students submitted a common dissertation / thesis, two students have been awarded more marks out of which one student by name Kapil Subedi obtained 87 marks for the project work and even if it is assumed 30 marks for Viva-voce is deducted, it could be inferred 57 marks has been awarded to the said dissertation / thesis, whereas the petitioner No.1 has been awarded only 17 marks. Therefore, she has a strong reason to believe 17 marks is only for Viva-voce marks and dissertation / thesis marks has not been awarded to the petitioner No.1. Hence, aggrieved by the said improper and illegal assessment of awarding the marks in respect of paper practical project for the V year Pharma D examination, the petitioners are before this Court. 6. The statement of objection was filed by the respondent No.1 - University opposing the contention of the petitioners by stating that the petitioners are not entitled for any relief sought for in the writ petition. It is further contended that the ordinance governing the course promulgated by the respondent No.1 - University does not provide for any such fresh evaluation of practical paper. The respondent No.1 - University further opposed the writ petition on the ground that the petitioners have no legal right to seek for a relief of writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus in view of the law laid down by the Apex Court in the case of RAN VIJAY SINGH vs STATE OF UP, (2018) AIR SC 52 . The respondent No.1 - University has further taken a defence that the final evaluation of the paper project work was done by two Examiners, ie., one external and another internal examiner. 7. After adopting the methodology prescribed to assess the performance of the petitioners, it was found that the performance of the petitioners was poor on all counts and accordingly marks were awarded to them. The reason for awarding of marks has been specified in the answer book let, which has been produced before this Court as Annexures-R1 to R3. Further, in the statement of objections filed by the respondent No.1 University, it is clearly stated that the uniform method is adopted by all the Examiners while evaluating and assessing the answer scripts and the same is in accordance with the Regulation 17.6, which prescribe the methodology for evaluation and merely because the petitioners have failed to score the required marks for passing, cannot be a ground to seek for fresh evaluation, as the same is impermissible in law, in view of the fact that every student who fails, as a matter of right, approach this Court for fresh evaluation, which if allowed would open a Pandora's box. It is also stated that each student is assessed on the basis of their performance and accordingly, the marks are awarded and since the petitioners performance was poor they could not pass the subject and therefore, the question of permitting the petitioners for internship does not arise. On these grounds, the respondent No.1 - University sought for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 - University and learned counsel for respondent No.2 College. 9. The learned counsel for petitioners vehemently contended that the petitioners are meritorious students and they have performed exceptionally well in Viva-voce and submitted their thesis in writing which was duly signed by the Principal of the respondent No.2 College and also by the Head of the Department as well as the Guide. The question of their securing shockingly disproportionate marks in the practical paper of V year, is the subject matter of this writ petition and they have all the reason to doubt and disbelieve the proper assessment made by the respondent No.1 - University. The learned counsel for petitioners mainly relies on the improper evaluation and the assessment made by the Examiners / Evaluators. He contends that the total marks of the practical paper is for 100 marks, out of which 30 marks for Viva-voce and 70 marks for thesis. The petitioner No.1 has been awarded only 17 marks out of 100, petitioner No.2 is awarded 25 marks out of 100 and petitioner No.3 is awarded only 18 marks out of 100, whereas the other students who did the common dissertation along with the petitioners have secured 87 marks out of 100 and therefore there is a glaring error in the evaluation made by the respondent No.1 - University. 10. The petitioners have also filed a re-joinder to the statement of objections of respondent No.1 - University. 11. The learned counsel for petitioners seriously contended that the methodology adopted in the Regulations of the respondent No.1 - University and the evaluation parameters are mentioned in the Regulation 17.3, 17.4, 17.5 and 17.6 of the Regulations, which describes the procedure to be followed to allot marks in the project work. He further relies on Regulation 17.6, which reads as under: "17.6. He further relies on Regulation 17.6, which reads as under: "17.6. Evaluation-The following methodology shall be adopted for evaluating the project work- (i) Project work shall be evaluated by internal and external examiners. (ii) Students shall be evaluated in groups for four hours (i.e., about half an hour for a group of four students). (iii) Three seminars presented by students shall be evaluated for thirty marks each and the average of best two shall be forwarded to the university with marks of other subjects. (iv) Evaluation shall be done on the following items: Marks a) Write up of the seminar (7.5) b) Presentation of work (7.5) c) Communication skills (7.5) d) Question and answer skills (7.5) Total (30 marks) (v) Final evaluation project work shall be done on the following items: Marks a) Write up of the seminar (17.5) b) Presentation of work (17.5) c) Communication skills (17.5) d) Question and answer skills (17.5) Total (70 marks) It is the contention of the learned counsel for petitioners that the methodology prescribed in the Regulations for awarding marks has not been followed in strict sense, thereby causing serious illegality, infirmity, inaccuracy in effecting marks, which ought to have been awarded to the petitioners and thereby it has caused grave injustice and hence they have sought for quashing of the said marks as asserted in Annexures-B, C and D and sought for a fresh practical examination in respect of the petitioners in V year Pharma D Course. 12. The learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the following judgments in support of their case: (I) DR. VYSHNAVI A. RAO vs RGUHS,2015 SCCOnline(Kar) 3584 ; (II) Unreported Judgment dated 21.06.2016 in W.P. No.19676-677/2016 CHANDANA VIDYA SHANKAR vs RGUHS; (iii) RAN VIJAY SINGH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2018) 2 SCC 357 . 13. Per contra, the learned counsel for respondent No.1 - University in an erudite manner contends that the petitioners herein do not have any legal right to seek for a writ of certiorari or writ of mandamus, in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh, stated supra, wherein catena of earlier judgments rendered by it has been considered with respect to the question involved herein and therefore the legal position is squarely covered in the said case. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 - University further contends that the ordinance governing the course promulgated by the respondent No.1 University does not provide for conduct of fresh examination, so also, for conducting any fresh evaluation of the practical papers and hence, when the ordinance or Regulation does not prescribe reevaluation or for fresh examination, the question of conducting of fresh evaluation or fresh examination for the petitioners does not arise. 14. The learned counsel for respondent No.1 - University further contends that the methodology prescribed in the Regulations is only a mode and method for Examiners for assessing the student on all parameters under different heads and it is only for the benefit of the Examiners and not to be shown in the practical answer book, whereas under the remarks column the communication skills is shown as poor with regard to the petitioners herein. It is further contention of the respondent No.1 - University that this methodology for assessing of parameters is uniformly adopted by the Examiners with respect to all the students and there is no illegality or perversity in the same. 15. The learned counsel for the respondent No.1 - University relied on the following judgments in support of this case: (i) RAN VIJAY SINGH vs STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH, (2018) 2 SCC 357 ; & (ii) Unreported Judgment dated 01.06.2020 in W.P. No.6735/2020 DR. AFSAL K M vs RGUHS. 16. The learned counsel for the respondent No.2 College though does not have much say in the present writ petition adopts the arguments advanced by the learned counsel for respondent No.1 University. 17. After having heard the erudite arguments of the learned counsel for the petitioners and the learned counsel for the respondents and on perusal of the records, which would indicate that the present exam taken by the petitioners is a subjective type of practical examination and it is not an objective type of question and answers. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while asserting his arguments on the point of methodology in awarding the marks as per the Regulations of respondent No.1-University, has canvassed his arguments very specifically with regard to the illegality and improper assessment and valuation of marks in the practical exam. 18. The learned counsel for the petitioners, while asserting his arguments on the point of methodology in awarding the marks as per the Regulations of respondent No.1-University, has canvassed his arguments very specifically with regard to the illegality and improper assessment and valuation of marks in the practical exam. The learned counsel has relied on the decisions of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the cases of Dr.Vyshnavi A. Rao and Chandana Vidya Shankar (supra) and in the facts of that particular case, the petitioner therein was aggrieved by the process of examination conducted by the University with regard to clinical/practical and viva voce examination which was in violation of the Regulations and Ordinance of the respondent-University. In that particular case, the petitioner/candidate was to be examined by two internal examiners and two external examiners thereby forming a panel of four examiners whereas the petitioner therein was examined by two internal examiners who were in no way concerned with the examination of the petitioner and who had participated in the practical, viva voce and clinical examination of the petitioner and accordingly, since two internal examiners whose names were not satisfied in the Regulations had participated and conducted the examination for the petitioner therein, the Hon'ble Court had set aside the examination and directed the University to reconstitute the panel of internal examiners not exceeding four in numbers. Therefore, it is important to mention here that the above said two judgments relied on by the learned counsel for the petitioners are prior to the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) wherein the law has been laid down and it is very well settled with regard to revaluation or scrutiny of answer sheets. 19. Secondly, the learned counsel for the petitioners has also relied on the decision in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), wherein the learned counsel relies on para- 30.2 of the said judgment which reads as under: "30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then 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 and exceptional cases that a material error has been committed." 20. Learned counsel for the petitioners has relied on the above said ratio of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, that in the present case on hand, though there are no provision for revaluation of the answer sheet, he contends that non awarding of the marks in accordance with the Regulation 17.6 is a material error and would come within the definition of exceptional case. Therefore, it would call for interference by this Court. 21. Though the Hon'ble Supreme Court has said so in clear and inexplicit terms that if there is material error and only in exceptional cases, the Courts can interfere in the matters of revaluation or scrutiny of the answer sheet, in my opinion, in the present case, there is no material error that has been committed and the petitioners are not able to show before this Court that there has been a gross material error, which has been committed while evaluating the answer sheets and the same would come under the definition of exceptional case to be interfered with. 22. Learned counsel for respondent No.1-University relied on the decision of the Coordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Dr.Afsal K.M. (supra), wherein the similar set of facts were urged by the petitioners therein to conduct revaluation of answer scripts. The Coordinate Bench of this Court in the said case has relied on the judgment in the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and dismissed the writ petition thereof. I am in respectful agreement with the decision of the above case and is applicable to the facts of the present case. Learned counsel for respondent No.1 has also relied on the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra), wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court held in paras-30, 30.1 to 30.5, 31 and 32, which read as under: "30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the reevaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination permits the reevaluation of an answer sheet or scrutiny of an answer sheet as a matter of right, then the authority conducting the examination may permit it; 30.2. If a statute, Rule or Regulation governing an examination does not permit reevaluation or scrutiny of an answer sheet (as distinct from prohibiting it) then 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 and exceptional cases that a material error has been committed; 30.3. The Court should not at all reevaluate or scrutinize the answer sheets of a candidate-it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to the academics; 30.4. The Court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate. 31. On our part we may add that sympathy or compassion does not play any role in the matter of directing or not directing re-evaluation of an answer sheet. If an error is committed by the examination authority, the complete body of candidates suffers. The entire examination process does not deserve to be derailed only because some candidates are disappointed or dissatisfied or perceive some injustice having been caused to them by an erroneous question or an erroneous answer. All the candidates suffer equally, though some might suffer more but that cannot be helped since mathematical precision is not always possible. This Court has shown one way out of an impasse exclude the suspect or offending question. 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. 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. The present appeals are a classic example of the consequence of such interference where there is no finality to the result of the examinations even after a lapse of eight years. Apart from the examination authorities even the candidates are left wondering about the certainty or otherwise of the result of the examination whether they have passed or not; whether their result will be approved or disapproved by the Court; whether they will get admission in a college or University or not; and whether they will get recruited or not. This unsatisfactory situation does not work to anybody's advantage and such a state of uncertainty results in confusion being worse confounded. The overall and larger impact of all this is that public interest suffers." 23. As rightly stated by the learned counsel for respondent No.1-University, the examinations taken by the petitioners are subjective type and not objective type question and answer and accordingly, the marks have been awarded. No two persons writing the examinations can secure the same marks because of the fact that it is not an objective type of question and answer. As stated by him earlier, the petitioners herein have not been able to satisfactorily establish or show before this Court that there has been a gross material error which would be an error and an exceptional case seeking interference by this Court. Further, in my opinion, this Court cannot sit as an Examiner to evaluate whether the marks awarded by the Evaluators or the Examining Authority is right or wrong. Prudence demands that it be left to the academicians and experts to award marks in the examination, which is their forte. 24. Further, in my opinion, this Court cannot sit as an Examiner to evaluate whether the marks awarded by the Evaluators or the Examining Authority is right or wrong. Prudence demands that it be left to the academicians and experts to award marks in the examination, which is their forte. 24. In the case of High Court Of Tripura Through Registrar General v. Tirtha Sarathi Mukherjee and Others,2019 SCCOnLine(SC) 139 in Civil Appeal No.(S)1264/2019, the Hon'ble Apex Court while dealing with similar set of facts and circumstances of conducting examination and the provisions for revaluation of answer scripts has held at para-17 as under: "17. In Central Board of Secondary Education Through Secretary, All India Pre- Medical/Pre-Dental Entrance Examination v. Khushboo Shrivastava, (2014) 14 SCC 523 , again a bench of two learned Judges after undertaking a Review of earlier decisions, held as follows:- "9. We find that a three-Judge Bench of this Court in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 , has clearly held relying on Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth, (1984) 4 SCC 27 , that in the absence of any provision for the re-evaluation of answer books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has any right to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. The decision in Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 , was followed by another three-Judge Bench of this Court in Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 , in which the direction of the High Court for re-evaluation of answer books of all the examinees securing 90% or above marks was held to be unsustainable in law because the regulations of the Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, which conducted the examination, did not make any provision for re-evaluation of answer books in the rules." In the above said case, the Hon'ble Apex Court has also relied on the case of Ran Vijay Singh (supra) and extracted para-30.5 of the said decision, which reads as under: "30.5 In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidates." Further in para-19 of the said judgment of the Hon'ble Apex Court, it is held that- "19. We have noticed the decisions of this Court. We have noticed the decisions of this Court. Undoubtedly, a three Judge Bench has laid down that there is no legal right to claim or ask for revaluation in the absence of any provision for revaluation. Undoubtedly, there is no provision. In fact, the High Court in the impugned judgment has also proceeded on the said basis. The first question which we would have to answer is whether despite the absence of any provision, are the courts completely denuded of power in the exercise of the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution to direct revaluation? It is true that the right to seek a writ of mandamus is based on the existence of a legal right and the corresponding duty with the answering respondent to carry out the public duty. Thus, as of right, it is clear that the first respondent could not maintain either writ petition or the review petition demanding holding of revaluation." Finally, the Hon'ble Apex Court has given its conclusion at para-34 as under: "34. However, we would like to rest our conclusion on the basis that not being armed with a right given by a provision providing revaluation and in the facts which we have already set out and the reasons we have alluded we would think that the High Court ought not to have allowed the review petition. We may incidentally also notice that the High Court has, on the one hand reasoned that what was covered by the judgment in the writ petition was a complaint related to Paper III. Despite this, the direction is given for evaluation of Paper II and Paper III. It may be true that direction to evaluate Paper III may be a mistake but even if this is treated as Paper No.I & II, the High Court has premised its interference on the premise of answer to Paper No.II. In such circumstances, we allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. The review petition filed before the High Court shall stand dismissed. There shall but no order as to costs." 25. In the circumstances, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the law with regard to the examination, scrutiny or revaluation of answer scripts is now well settled by the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court. The review petition filed before the High Court shall stand dismissed. There shall but no order as to costs." 25. In the circumstances, there is no doubt in the mind of this Court that the law with regard to the examination, scrutiny or revaluation of answer scripts is now well settled by the dictum of the Hon'ble Apex Court. It is no doubt true that the object of wide power of Article 226 may continue to be available even though there is no provision for revaluation, in a situation, where it is undoubtedly established without even a slightest manner of doubt that the candidates have given the correct answer but they are treated to have given wrong answer and consequently, the candidate is found disentitled to any marks and such cases under the circumstances would be rare and exceptional. In my opinion, the present case of the petitioners does not to fall within the category of an error and an exceptional case, which would warrant interference by this Court. 26. On careful perusal of the records and in view of the law laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court, the petitioners have not made out a ground to direct respondent No.1-University to conduct fresh practical examination for the petitioners, so also no case is made out to quash Annexures-B, C and D as illegal. In the above circumstances, this writ petition being devoid of merits, is dismissed.