ORDER : 1. Heard Sri D.V. Nagarjuna Babu, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the Writ Petitioner; Sri S. Sriram, learned Advocate General appearing for the Respondents and Sri G. Vijaya Kumar, learned Standing Counsel for Dr. Y.S.R. (presently NTR) University of Health Sciences. 2. Prayer made in the Writ Petition is as under: “....to issue an appropriate order, direction or Writ more particularly one in the nature of the Writ of Mandamus, declaring the action ofthe respondents in not considering petitioner's case for fresh evaluation of answer scripts in M.S. Orthopedics Speciality as highly, arbitrarily, unjust, unauthorized and contrary to the order dated 30.09.2022 in W.P.JHo.32336/2022, apart from being violative of Article 14, 19(1)(g) and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently set aside the Proceedings No. E2(B)/PG/1066/CC/May, 2022/Exams dated 29.10.2022 of the 4 respondent and pass such other order...." Submissions of the Ld. Councel for the Write Petitioner : 3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner is prosecuting the Post Graduate Medical Course in M.S. Orthopedic Speciality in Shanthiram Medical College, Nandyal; that the college is affiliated to the Dr. Councel for the Write Petitioner : 3. Learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner submits that the Writ Petitioner is prosecuting the Post Graduate Medical Course in M.S. Orthopedic Speciality in Shanthiram Medical College, Nandyal; that the college is affiliated to the Dr. Y.S.R. University of Health Sciences (Respondent N0.I); that the Writ Petitioner is a M.S. Orthopedic PG Student, at the completion of the course, is required to appear in PG Medical examination consisting of four papers of 100 marks each; minimum pass mark being 40, the candidate is however required to get the aggregate of 200 marks out of 400 marks; that in the examinations conducted iin April/May, 2022, the Petitioner, having appeared and having declared as failed with a thin deficit margin of 5 marks for the aggregate of 200 marks; that the answer scripts have not been evaluated properly; that the Writ Petitioner has filed Writ Petition No.32336 of 2022; that during the pendency of the Writ Petition, the Writ Petitioner was permitted to personally inspect the answer scripts; that when the answer scripts were personally inspected, the Writ Petitioner has noticed that there are lot of ‘examiners’ variations’ in respect of various papers written by the Writ Petitioner; that by an order dated 13.09.2022 the Writ Petition was disposed of with certain directions thereby giving liberty to the students to submit representation to the University individually and that the University, after considering the such representations to decide for re-evaluation wherever it is necessary by using software adopted by the University as per the rules and regulations. 3.1. 3.1. It is further submitted by the learned Counsel for the Writ Petitioner that the Expert Committee, after verifying the answer scripts of the Writ Petitioner opined that there is no necessity for re-evaluation; that the Writ Petitioner has submitted one more representation on 11.12.2022 in detail pointing out the examiners’ variations in the matter of evaluation of answer scripts that necessitated ordering fresh re-evaluation; that the copy of the marks awarded by individual examiners against each question for all the four papers are also filed along with the present Writ Petition; that in Paper-Ill there is steep decrease in award of marks by the examiner qua 1st 2nd and 3rd examiners; and that as per the examination scheme for PG Medical Courses, if a candidate fails even in one paper, he has to re-appear in all the four papers in the next examination; that in the event of the candidate passing the PG Course in the next examination, and such a step will have a bearing on the candidates who are seeking admission into Super Speciality Courses or employment either in Government or private sectors; that the examiners appointed by the 1st respondent have not used the stylus for notation of marks/remarks; that the marks allotted by them to each answer to the each answer is in complete violation of the orders of various Courts; and, that a script marks report is attached to the answer sheet on which the marks are being indicated without making any remarks on the digital answer scripts. Submissions of learned Advocate General for Respondents: 4. Sri Sriram, learned Advocate General submits that counter affidavit is filed by Respondent No. 1-University. He has drawn the attention of this Court to the averments in the counter affidavit. He would submit that the law with regard to the evaluation of the answer scripts is well settled in as much as the Courts ought not to show indulgence if there are no regulations providing for such re-evaluation. Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh and others (Civil Appeal No.8037 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022). Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Dr. NTR University of Health Sciences v. Dr. Yerra Trinadh and others (Civil Appeal No.8037 of 2022 dated 04.11.2022). Learned Advocate General has drawn the attention of this Court to paragraphs 8 to 9 of the above judgment of the Apex Court, and a portion of which is usefully extracted as under; “8.1. In the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava (supra), it is observed and held by this Court that in absence of any provision for re-evaluation in the relevant rules, examinees have no right to claim or demand reevaluation. In paragraphs 7 & 8, it is observed and held as under: “7. We have heard the appellant (writ petitioner) in person and learned counsel for the respondents at considerable length. The main question which arises for consideration is whether the learned Single Judge was justified in directing re-evaluation of the answer-book of the appellant in General Science paper. Under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for reevaluation of his answer-book. There is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer-books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totalling of marks of each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer-book. There is no dispute that after scrutiny no mistake was found in the marks awarded to the appellant in the General Science paper. In the absence of anyprovision for re-evaluation of answer-books in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. This question was examined in considerable detail in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education y. Paritosh Bhupeshkumar Sheth [(1984) 4 SCO 27: AIR 1984 SC 1543 ], In this case, the relevant rules provided for verification (scrutiny of marks) on an application made to that effect by a candidate. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. Some of the students filed writ petitions praying that they may be allowed to inspect the answer-books and the Board be directed to conduct re-evaluation of such of the answer-books as the petitioners may demand after inspection. The High Court held that the rule providing for verification of marks gave an implied power to the examinees to demand a disclosure and inspection and also to seek re-evaluation of the answer-books. The judgment of the High Court i/i/as set aside and it was held that in absence of a specific provision conferring a right upon an examinee to have his answer-books re-evaluated, no such direction can be issued. There is no dispute that under the relevant rule of the Commission there is no provision entitling a candidate to have his answer-books re-evaluated. In such a situation, the prayer made by the appellant in the writ petition u/as wholly untenable and the learned Single Judge had clearly erred in having the answer-book of the appellant re evaluated. 8. Adopting such a course as was done by the learned Single Judge will give rise to practical problems. Many candidates may like to take a chance and pray for re-evaluation of their answer-books. Naturally, the Court will pass orders on different dates as and when writ petitions are filed. The Commission will have to then send the copies of individual candidates to examiners for re-evaluation which is bound to take time. The examination conducted by the Commission being a competitive examination, the declaration of final result will thus be unduly delayed and the vacancies will remain unfilled for a long time. What will happen if a candidate secures lesser marks in re-evaluation? He may come forward with a plea that the marks as originally awarded to him may be taken into consideration. The absence of clear rules on the subject may throw many problems and in the larger interest, they must be avoided.’ 9. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not at alljustified in calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there ivas a need for reevaluation or not. Applying the law laid down by this Court in the aforesaid decisions to the facts and circumstances of the case on hand, we are of the opinion that the High Court was not at alljustified in calling the record of the answer scripts and then to satisfy whether there ivas a need for reevaluation or not. /As reported, the High Courts are calling for the answer scripts/sheets for satisfying whether there is a need for re-evaluation or not and thereafter orders/directs re-evaluation, which is wholly Impermissible. Such a practice of calling for answer scripts/answersheets and thereafter to order re- evaluation and that too in absence of any specific provision in the relevant rules for re-evaluation and that too while exercising powers underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India is disapproved. ” 4.1. Learned Advocate General has also placed reliance on paragraph 32 in Ran Vijay Singh v. State of U.P., (2018) 2 SCC 357 and Vikesh Kumar Gupta and another v. State of Rajasthan and others, (2021) 2 SCC 309 . ANALYSIS: 5. Having considered the above submissions and the precedents, this Court is of the opinion that the law is well settled that a candidate has no right to seek re-evaluation of the answer script. Even in the case of Pramod Kumar Srivastava Vs. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, Patna & Ors ; (2004) 6 SCC 714 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has noticed that under the relevant rules of the Commission, there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer book. The said judgment has laid down that there is a provision for scrutiny only where the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by the candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in totalling of the marks for each question and noting them correctly on the first cover page of the answer book. In the said case, it has been stated categorically that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer book in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. In the said case, it has been stated categorically that in the absence of any provision for re-evaluation of answer book in the relevant rules, no candidate in an examination has got any right whatsoever to claim or ask for re-evaluation of his marks. As the Hon’ble Apex Court has already laid down the law that it is impermissible to issue a Writ of Mandamus for re-evaluation of the four answer scripts, this Court is of the opinion that the present Writ Petition is devoid of any merit. 6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is dismissed. No order as to costs. 7. Interlocutory Applications, if any, stand closed in terms of this order.