( 1 ) THE petitioner is the 2nd year student of m. B. B. S. The first respondent conducted examination in Pharmacology, microbiology, Pathology and Forensic medicine at the end of the second year. On 10-6-2000 the results were announced and the petitioner passed in Pharmacology and failed in Microbiology, Pathology and forensic Medicine. The petitioner suspected that the papers in which he failed have not been valued in a fair and objective manner. Therefore, he sought for split up Marks memo in these subjects and he was given the same. He got 23 marks in Microbiology, 35 marks in Pathology and 30 marks in forensic Medicine whereas minimum of 40% is the pass mark. Therefore, he approached this Court for a declaration that the action of the respondent in issuing marks Memo dt. 3-7-2000 in Microbiology, pathology and Forensic Medicine as illegal and for a direction to the respondents to revalue the answer papers in these three subjects. It is however not denied in the affidavit that there is no provision for revaluation.

( 2 ) IT is the contention of the petitioner that he has referred to and studied dr. Ananthanarayanan s Microbiology, dr. Narayanareddy s Forensic Medicine and standard book in Pathology by Robins and Kumar and therefore there is no possibility of getting lesser marks than 50 in microbiology, 55 in Pathology and 50 in forensic Medicine. According to the petitioner, the answer scripts have been valued wrongly.

( 3 ) THE learned Counsel for the petitioner sri B. Krishna Mohan while reiterating the contentions from the affidavit, placed reliance on the judgment of the Supreme court in Maharashtra State Board of Secondary education vs. Paritosh and two Division bench judgments of this Court in m. Lavanya Dutt vs. Jawaharlal Nehru technological University, Hyderabad and convenor, J. N. T. University, Hyderabad vs. C. Swarnalatha and vehemently submits that the University cannot in a routine manner rely on the absence of provision for revaluation and escape the legal obligation of verifying answer scripts as and when a student complain wrong, unfair and arbitrary valuation of the answer scripts.

( 4 ) THE learned Standing Counsel who took notice at the time of preliminary hearing brought to the notice of this Court a Division Bench judgment in Writ Appeal no. 796 of 1999 dt. 26-7-1999, to which I was a Member, and submits that the said judgment covers the issue raised in this writ Petition and prayed for dismissal of the Writ Petition in limine.

( 5 ) THE judgment of the Division Bench in c. Swarnalatha s case (supra 3) does not assist the learned Counsel for the petitioner which is in the context of wrong answers in the key with reference to Engineering, agricultural and Medical Common entrance Test and observations were made that in appropriate cases judicial review in academic matters is not ruled out. In the judgment of the other Division Bench in lavanya Dutts s case (supra 2) the Court noticed the well-settled principle that in the absence of Rule for revaluation, the Court shall refrain from issuing Writ of mandamus to revalue the papers, but having regard to the facts and circumstances of that case the Court gave direction to revalue the answer scripts. In my considered opinion, the observations relied on by the learned Counsel for the petitioner in Lavanya Dutt s case (supra 2) do not support the contention.

( 6 ) IN Maharashtra State Board of Secondary education s case (supra 1) the Supreme court inter alia rejected the challenge to regulation 104 of Maharashtra State Board of Secondary Education Regulations which specifically prohibits revaluation inter alia on the ground that if the revaluation is allowed as of right the Examination Boards, the Universities and other authorities will be flooded with applications for revaluation and such bodies will only be attending to work of revaluation which would affect regular and normal functions of such universities of conducting the courses. It is a