JUDGMENT : J.J. MUNIR, J. 1. The petitioner is a student of the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course at the K.D. Dental College and Hospital, Mathura, an affiliate college of the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra. The petitioner was admitted to the Bachelor of Dental Surgery Course during the Academic Year 2014-15. He asserts that he has performed very well in the academic curriculum. He has appeared in the final professional examination under Roll No. 178627762009 and Enrollment No. 13572. It is his case that he was declared ‘Failed’ in two papers, to wit, Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (Paper- 4) and Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge (Paper-7). The petitioner says that he wanted a re-evaluation of his marks obtained in each of these papers because ‘he believes that his answer scripts were not properly evaluated’ to borrow the words of the petitioner’s assertion in paragraph no. 7 of the writ petition. 2. It is also pleaded by him that looking to his past academic record, he expected much higher marks than those that have been awarded. He has also asserted in paragraph no. 8 that he has secured copies of the scripts relating to the two papers in question and found the answers not to be correctly evaluated by the Examiners. He has pleaded in paragraph no. 12, the details of the errors, that are subject matter of action here. It is pointed out that the petitioner applied for an online re-evaluation of the two papers, paying the requisite fee. After re-evaluation, there was a result of ‘No Change’ in both the papers. The petitioner thereupon moved an application to the Vice Chancellor and the Registrar of the Dr. Bhimrao Ambedkar University, Agra, seeking redress against the improperly done re-evaluation. No action being taken by the Vice Chancellor or the Registrar of the University, the petitioner has instituted this writ petition. He has prayed that a mandamus commanding the respondent University and the Vice Chancellor be issued to cause re-evaluation of the petitioner’s answer book in the subject papers of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (Paper-4) and Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge (Paper-7) of the B.D.S. Fourth Professional Examination, with a further direction that he be caused to be given correct marks after re-evaluation, within a period of time to be specified by this Court. 3. Heard Mr. Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. 3. Heard Mr. Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Gagan Mehta, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent nos. 2, 3 and 4 and Mr. Sriprakash Singh, learned Standing Counsel appearing on behalf of respondent no. 1. 4. Mr. Anirudh Kumar Upadhyay, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that it is a case of inaction on the University’s part, who are a statutory body. It is their duty to see that re-evaluation once undertaken, ought to be a bona fide exercise and not merely an eyewash. He urges that the original award as well as the result of re-evaluation, are both vitiated on account of grave irregularities committed by the two sets of Examiners. The petitioner has pleaded that he has correctly solved question no. 2(a) and 3(d) in the paper relating to Prosthodontics and Crown and Bridge (B) part 2 (Paper no. 7). The Examiners in both instances have not awarded correct marks. It is likewise argued that the question paper in the subject of Conservative Dentistry and Endodontics (Paper No. 4) carries question no. 1, which has two parts and question no. 3, both of which have been correctly answered by the petitioner. He has also answered question no. 5 correctly. It is pleaded and argued that question nos. (I) (both parts), 3 and 5 have not led to any marks being awarded by the Examiners in error. 5. Mr. Gagan Mehta, learned Counsel appearing for the University, on the other hand, submits that re-evaluation has been undertaken once and that has led to no change. This Court cannot convert itself into an expert to sit over the judgment of the Examiners, which is expressed in their award. He also submits that there cannot be a second re-evaluation, which is not contemplated under the Rules or the Regulations applicable. Mr. Gagan Mehta has, particularly, placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh and Others vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and Others, (2018) 2 SCC 357 . He has drawn the Court’s attention to the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra): “30. The law on the subject is therefore, quite clear and we only propose to highlight a few significant conclusions. They are: 30.1. He has drawn the Court’s attention to the following observations of their Lordships of the Supreme Court in Ran Vijay Singh (supra): “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 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. 30.2. 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. 30.3. The court should not at all re-evaluate or scrutinise the answer sheets of a candidate - it has no expertise in the matter and academic matters are best left to academics. 30.4. The court should presume the correctness of the key answers and proceed on that assumption. 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 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.” 6. This Court has carefully considered the matter in hand. The petitioner’s grievance has already been placed in a second instance before the Examiners, who have done a re-evaluation. They have not disturbed the award made in the first instance. Now, the petitioner asks for a further re-evaluation. What he seeks is virtually a second re-evaluation. 7. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has not brought to this Court’s attention any regulation that may permit a second re-evaluation. That apart, re-evaluation once done, ought to bring the grievance to an end. No candidate can claim the right to a successive re-evaluation until some Examiner is persuaded to agree with the Examinee about the assessment of his own merit. This matter relates to assessment of a paper relating to a specialized branch of medicine. This Court has no means to ascertain nor the requisite expertise to determine if the petitioner is right or the Examiners are wrong. This matter relates to assessment of a paper relating to a specialized branch of medicine. This Court has no means to ascertain nor the requisite expertise to determine if the petitioner is right or the Examiners are wrong. In a situation like this, the Examination Authority is to be trusted for their conclusions. It would be unwise for this Court to convert itself into an expert and set about the task of reopening an Examiner’s award twice done. 8. In the result, this writ petition fails and is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs.