JUDGMENT :

RAJESH SHANKAR, J.

1. The present writ petition is taken up today through Video Conferencing.

2. The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the Controller of Examination, Vinobha Bhave University, Hazaribagh the respondent no. 2 to take steps for re-evaluation of the petitioner’s answer-sheet of the subject ‘Maritime Law’ in which he has scored 26 marks out of 70 marks, while the pass mark was 28.

3. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the content of the writ petition.

4. The petitioner was admitted in LL.B course in Vidhi Mahavidyalaya, Koderma under Vinobha Bhave University, Hazaribagh in July, 2016 and the said course was completed in the month of December, 2019. On 28th November, 2019, the result of final semester of LL.B course was uploaded in the web portal of the said University, wherein, the petitioner was shown to have passed in all the subjects of sixth semester. However his final result was reflected in the pending list as he was shown failed in one paper i.e. Maritime Law of fifth semester. He was said to have scored 26 marks out of 70, whereas the pass mark was 28. The petitioner immediately represented the competent authority of the said University seeking re-evaluation of his answer-sheet of the said subject by depositing Rs. 500/-. The deposit slip of the same has been annexed as Annexure-1 to the writ petition.

5. The contention of the petitioner raised in the present writ petition that he had performed in the said subject much better than the marks awarded to him and due to the said reason he represented the competent authority of the University to get the answer-sheet re-evaluated.

6. Mrs. Indrani Sen Choudhary, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents submits that there is no such provision for reevaluation of the answer-sheet of a candidate.

7. This Court is of the view that re-evaluation of the answer-sheet cannot be claimed by a student as a matter of right, rather the same depends on the relevant rules/ regulations/notifications etc. issued by the University. The petitioner has not stated anywhere in the writ petition that any such rule/regulation/notification has been issued by the respondent-University in this regard. Otherwise also, the said examination was held in November, 2019 itself and, therefore, no interference is warranted in the present matter under extra ordinary writ jurisdiction of this Court.

8. The writ petition being devoid of merit is, accordingly, dismissed.