JUDGMENT : This writ petition is under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, whereby and whereunder, the direction has been sought for upon the respondent nos.1 to 3 to re-evaluation/re-examine the answer-sheets of written test of Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination, 2022. 2. The brief facts of the case, as per the pleading made in the petition, are as under:- It is the case of the petitioner that an advertisement was published on 18.02.2022 for admission in Ph.D program (PET-2022) under Sido-Kanhu Murmu University, Dumka website for Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination, 2022 (PET-2022). The Respondent University published a revised list of vacant seat as on 31.01.2022 in respective subject in Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination, 2022, there are 407 seats vacant till 31.01.2022. As per the advertisement, the respondent-University issued/uploaded in website, application form for admission to Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination, 2022 and its guidelines for necessary information, eligibility, procedure for written test, qualifying marks for admission and fees also. According to the guidelines, the petitioner has submitted application form along with fee through online and submitted entire documents according to the advertisement. After submission of the application form for Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination, 2022, the respondent University published syllabus for the respective subjects through online thereafter the petitioner obtained the said syllabus for preparation of the same. It is the further case of the petitioner that her admit card was not uploaded online by the University, then the petitioner approached to the respondent no.3, then he assured that within time, the admit card will be uploaded online but the same has not been uploaded. Thereafter, the petitioner appeared in written test in respective examination centre, but again the respondent University has not provided Admit Card to the petitioner. He was allowed for written test. The Respondent University published provisional list of Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination, 2022 having the subject, i.e., Political Science which belongs to the present petitioner. The Respondent University gave 39 marks to the petitioner which is mentioned in the provisional list Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination, 2022 and placed at serial no.112. On 23.08.2022, the respondent no.3 published first merit list but the name of the petitioner was not mentioned therein. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation through speed post on 28.09.2022 to the respondent no.5 for re-evaluation/re-examine the written entrance test copy of Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination. On 23.08.2022, the respondent no.3 published first merit list but the name of the petitioner was not mentioned therein. Thereafter, the petitioner submitted representation through speed post on 28.09.2022 to the respondent no.5 for re-evaluation/re-examine the written entrance test copy of Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination. The respondent University gave 39 marks to the petitioner so that he could not take admission in Ph.D. It is further stated that the respondent no.3 has done irregularities in Ph.D. Text Examination, 2022. The respondent university with full knowledge with mala-fide intention gave 39 marks to the present petitioner so that she could not take admission in the Ph.D. Programme, 2022. Thereafter, she has given representation before the authority concerned but no action has been taken. Being aggrieved with the aforesaid fact, the instant writ petition has been filed. 3. It appears from the pleading made in the writ petition that the writ petitioner while not declared to be successful in the Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination, 2022, she has made an application for re-evaluation/re-examination of the written test, as also, sought for direction upon the respondent no.5 to investigate the call details of the respondent no.3 that how he did work against law and rule in Ph.D Admission result, 2022 in favour of unsuccessful candidates. 4. Counter affidavit has been filed, wherein stand inter-alia has been taken at paragraph-5 that in the statutes and regulations framed under the Jharkhand State Universities Act, there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer-books. 5. Dr. Ashok Kumar Singh, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University has submitted that in absence of any regulation in this regard, there cannot be a direction by this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for re-evaluation/re-examination of the answer-sheets. 6. This Court, after having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on consideration of the pleading made on their behalf both in the writ petition and in the counter affidavit, has gathered from the fact available in the writ petition that the writ petitioner was participated in the Ph.D. Entrance Test Examination, 2022, but, she has been declared to be un-successful, since she has secured less marks, thereafter, the writ petitioner, being dissatisfied with the marks, has filed an application for re-evaluation/re-examination of the answer-sheets. 7. 7. The position of law is well settled so far as the issue of re-evaluation or re-examination of the answer-sheets is concerned as per the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Vikas Pratap Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., reported in (2013) 14 SCC 494 , wherein, at paragraph-18, it has been laid down that re-evaluation, in absence of any regulation in this regard, is not permissible, however, the irregularity in the evaluation if there, then the same can be done, for ready reference, paragraph-18 of the said judgment reads as under:- “18. In respect of the respondent Board’s propriety in taking the decision of re-evaluation of answer scripts, we are of the considered view that the respondent Board is an independent body entrusted with the duty of proper conduct of competitive examinations to reach accurate results in fair and proper manner with the help of experts and is empowered to decide upon re-evaluation of answer sheets in the absence of any specific provision in that regard, if any irregularity at any stage of evaluation process is found. (See J&K State Board of Education v. Feyaz Ahmed Malik and Sahiti v. Dr N.T.R. University of Health Sciences. It is settled law that if the irregularities in evaluation could be noticed and corrected specifically and undeserving select candidates be identified and in their place deserving candidates be included in select list, then no illegality would be said to have crept in the process of re-evaluation. The respondent Board thus identified the irregularities which had crept in the evaluation procedure and corrected the same by employing the method of re-evaluation in respect of the eight questions, answers to which were incorrect and by deletion of the eight incorrect questions and allotment of their marks on pro rata basis. The said decision cannot be characterised as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re-evaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vrs. The said decision cannot be characterised as arbitrary. Undue prejudice indeed would have been caused had there been re-evaluation of subjective answers, which is not the case herein.” The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Ran Vijay Singh & Ors. Vrs. State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors., reported in (2018) 2 SCC 357 has been pleased to hold that 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, for ready reference, paragraph 30 of the aforesaid judgment reads 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 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 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 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; and 30.5. In the event of a doubt, the benefit should go to the examination authority rather than to the candidate.” 8. This Court coming back to the facts of the case, wherefrom, it is evident that the re-evaluation/re-examination of the answer-sheets has been sought for, whereas, the State has taken specific stand as under paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit that in the statutes and regulations framed under the Jharkhand State Universities Act, there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer-books. 9. This Court coming back to the facts of the case, wherefrom, it is evident that the re-evaluation/re-examination of the answer-sheets has been sought for, whereas, the State has taken specific stand as under paragraph-5 of the counter affidavit that in the statutes and regulations framed under the Jharkhand State Universities Act, there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer-books. 9. This Court, after taking into consideration the aforesaid stand as also considering the fact that the writ petitioner has failed to draw the attention regarding availability of rule/regulation in this regard, therefore, is of the view that the writ petition lacks merit. 10. Accordingly, the instant writ petition fails and is, dismissed.