ORDER Heard finally with the consent of both the parties. 1. By way of instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for the following reliefs:-- “(i) It is, therefore, prayed that this Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents No. 1 and 2 to make proper revaluation of all subjects of the petitioner by a independent valuer and give correct marks to the petitioner in Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2) 2017 in all subjects after making revaluation. (ii) Respondents be also directed to produce answer sheets, unsolved question papers and model answer sheets of all subjects of the petitioner for perusal of this Hon’ble Court and if required, proper revaluation of the all subjects of the petitioner will be got done by expert teachers of all subjects. (iii) This Hon’ble Court be further pleased to pass any such other orders as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit under the circumstances of the case.” 2. The brief facts of the case are that the petitioner has appeared in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination (10+2) for the academic year 2017. The respondent declared the result and the petitioner was declared pass in the examination with first division. The petitioner awarded distinction in three subjects i.e. English (Special), Hindi (General) and Mathematics. When the marksheet was received, the petitioner was surprised because in all subjects, she has been given less marks, whereas as per her expectation, more marks should be given. Hence, this petition. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the valuer has not examined the answer sheets of the petitioner carefully and she has been awarded less marks. Therefore, prayer is made that direction may be issued to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to get the revaluation done in all the subjects of the petitioner by a independent valuer or expert teacher. 4. The scope of interference in matter of evaluation of answers in examination is extremely limited u/Art. 226 of the Constitution. Such scope is open only when there is an allegation of non-evaluation or incorrect totalling of marks in case of descriptive type answers. However, in the event of answers being objective in nature, the scope of interference is slightly broader. 5. Such scope is open only when there is an allegation of non-evaluation or incorrect totalling of marks in case of descriptive type answers. However, in the event of answers being objective in nature, the scope of interference is slightly broader. 5. In the instant case, the answers are descriptive in nature and therefore the wisdom of the expert evaluator in evaluating the answers cannot be adjudged by exercising writ jurisdiction especially in the absence of any expertise with this Court. Moreso, in matters of evaluation of marks awarded in examination ought not to be interfered with or else it may open the pandora’s box and lead to flood of litigation which would be difficult for this Court to handle. This Court is bolstered in its view by the decision of the apex Court in the case of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kumarsheth reported in AIR 1984 SC 1543 relevant extract of which is reproduced below :-- “The High Court has relied upon the fact that the University of Bombay and some other Universities have recently made provisions permitting candidates to demand revaluation. In our opinion, this has little relevant for the purpose of deciding about the legal validity of the impugned regulations framed by the Board. We do not know under what circumstances, the University of Bombay has decided to recognize a right in the examinees to demand a revaluation. As far as the Board is concerned, it has set out in the counter-affidavit the enormity of the task with which it is already faced, namely, of completing twice during each year the process of evaluation and release of results of some 3 lakhs of candidates appearing for the SSC and HSC Examinations to be held in an interval of only a few months from one another. If the candidates are all to be given inspection of their answer books or the revaluation of the answer papers is to be done in the presence of the candidates, the process is bound to be extremely time consuming and if such a request is made by even about ten per cent of the candidates, who will be 30,000 in number, it would involve several thousands of man hours and is bound to throw the entire system out of gear. Further, it is in the public interest that the results of public examinations when published should have some finality attached to them. If inspection, verification in the presence of the candidates and revaluation are to be allowed as of right, it may lead to gross and indefinite uncertainty, particularly in regard to the relative ranking etc. of the candidates, besides leading to utter confusion on account of the enormity of the labour and time involved in the process.” Dealing with the scope of interference in such policy matters by Courts, the Supreme Court held :— “...... The Court can not sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court can not strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act. The Legislature and its delegate are the sole repositories of the power to decide what policy should be pursued in relation to matters covered by the Act and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suffer from any legal infirmity, in the sense of its being wholly beyond the scope of the regulation-making power of its being inconsistent with any of the provisions of the parent enactment or in violation of any of the limitations imposed by the Constitution .... the Court should be extremely reluctant to substitute its own views as to what is wise, prudent and proper in relation to academic matters in preference to those formulated by professional men possessing technical expertise and rich experience of actual day-to-day working of educational institutions and the departments controlling them.” Dealing with the contention that students who do very well in the examination, will be highly prejudiced if there is no provision for revaluation, and therefore Courts should interfere in such matters, the Supreme Court, held thus:— “It will be wholly wrong for the Court to make a pedantic and purely idealistic approach to the problems of this nature, isolated from the actual realities and grass root problems involved in the working of the system and unmindful of the consequences which would emanate if a purely idealistic view as opposed to a pragmatic one where to be propounded. It is equally important that the Court should also, as far as possible, avoid any decision or interpretation of a statutory provision, rule or bye-law which would bring about the result of rendering the system unworkable in practice.” Considering the question whether a right to revaluation should be recognized, while examining the validity of a Rule barring revaluation, the Supreme Court held :— “We are unable to agree with the further reason stated by the High Court that since ‘every student has a right to receive fair play in examination and get appropriate marks matching his performance’ it will be a denial of the right to such fair play if there is to be a prohibition on the right to demand revaluation and unless a right to revaluation is recognized and permitted there is an infringement of rules of fair play. What constitutes fair play depends upon the facts and circumstances relating to each particular given situation. If it is found that every possible precaution has been taken and all necessary safeguards provided to ensure that the answer books inclusive of supplements are kept in safe custody so as to eliminate the danger of their being tampered with and that the evaluation is done by the examiners applying uniform standards with checks and cross checks at different stages and that measures for detection of malpractice etc. have also been effectively adopted, in such cases it will not be correct on the part of the Courts to strike down the provision prohibiting revaluation on the ground that it violates the rules of fair play.” 6. The above said decision of apex Court has been followed by this Court in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya v. State of M.P. reported in 2005(2) MPLJ 315 and in WP No.5320/2016 (Rahul Soni v. M.P. Board of Secondary Education & Anr.) decided on 16.3.2017 (Gwalior Bench). 7. In view of the above, there is no scope for interference in the present petition. Therefore, the same fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost.