The main legal point established in the judgment is that there is no right for revaluation of answer scripts in the Pre-University examination, and it is not justiciable to direct the Board to award more marks than the marks awarded by the valuer to any answers or to direct revaluation of the answer scripts.

( 1 ) IN this writ petition, presented by a student, who has failed in the Pre-University examination conducted by the Board of pre-University Education of this State, the following two questions arise for consideration - (I) Whether a candidate has a right to the relief in the form of a direction to the board of Pre-University Education to revalue his/her answer scripts? (II) Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction to the respondent to award more marks than awarded by the valuer?

( 2 ) THE facts of the case, in brief, are as follows: The petitioner, who is a minor and who has presented this writ petition through her father and next friend, was a student of II Year P. U. C. during the academic year 1983-84. She appeared for the II Year P. U. C. examination conducted in April 1984. She secured in all 320 marks out of 600 which works out to 53. 6 per cent. In the optional groups consisting of physics, Chemistry, Mathmatics and Biology, she secured 188 marks out of 400 which works out to 47 per cent. However, she failed in the examination for the reason, she secured only 26 marks in Biology theory consisting of Botany and zoology, the maximum marks for each of these papers was 45. The petitioner thereafter sought for re-totalling the marks for which a provision has been made in the regulars of the Board of Pre-University ('the Board' for short ). Thereafter she presented this writ petition.

( 3 ) WHEN the matter came up before the court on 13. 7. 1984, the answer scripts of the petitioner were produced. On an examination of the answer scripts, it was found that the petitioner had secured 16 marks in Botany and 3 marks in Zoology and there was no mistake in the totalling of the marks. When the answer scripts so produced before the Court, were also made available to the learned counsel for the petitioner and the petitioner, an additional statement was filed stating that the valuation made by the concerned valuers were patently wrong.

( 4 ) THE averments made in the additional statement were as follows: Though the petitioner gave correct answers to Question nos. I (B) (I), II (4), III (2), IV (2) and II (3) in the answer script concerning Zoology, zero marks had been given by the valuer to her answers to the first four of these questions, one mark in respect of the other two questions. In respect of questions II (4) and IV (4) of Botany paper, though the petitioner had given correct answers, zero mark was given to each of the answers and in respect of question II (1) only four marks were given, though more should have been given.

( 5 ) THE Board, as also the concerned valuers have filed their counter statements. The Board in its affidavit has stated that the answer scripts of the petitioner had been valued in accordance with the regulations of the Board. The concerned valuers have also stated that on perusal of the answers scripts, once again they found that the valuation made by them was correct. The plea of the respondents is that the rules do not permit revaluation and the petitioner is not entitled to the relief sought for.

( 6 ) IT is in the light of these pleas the two questions set out first arise for consideration.

( 7 ) LEARNED counsel for the Board contended that no writ of mandamus directing the Board to revalue the answer scripts of the petitioner can be issued by this Court as the existence of such a right in the petitioner and a corresponding duty on the part of the Board was a condition precedent for the issue of a writ of mandamus. In support of the submission that there is no such right in the petitioner, counsel for the Board relied on rules 37 and 38 of the rules relating to the conduct of Pre-University examination framed by the state Government in exercise of its executive power under Article 162 of the Constitution Rule 37 on which the learned counsel relied, reads -"37. Re-valuation of answer scripts:- under circumstances, re-valuation of answer scripts will be permitted by the Board.