The main legal point established in the judgment is the limited scope of the court to interfere with the policy decisions of examination bodies and the absence of statutory provisions for re-evaluation.

( 1 ) THIS special appeal has been filed against the judgment and order of the learned Single Judge dated 20. 12. 2004 by which the writ petition of the appellant/petitioner has been dismissed for issuing direction to the respondents to recheek the answer book of the appellant/petitioner in presence of her representative and declare the final result accordingly.

( 2 ) THE facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant/petitioner appeared in the final examinations held in March 2004 by the Central Board of Secondary education, hereinafter called "the Board". The result was declared in June 2004, wherein the appellant/petitioner could not pass the paper of Mathematics I and she could appear in the supplementary examination. The said supplementary examination was conducted on 30. 7. 2004, however she could not clear the said paper, when the result was declared on 20. 8. 2004.

( 3 ) BEING aggrieved, appellant/ petitioner filed an application for rechecking of her Mathematics 1 paper depositing the requisite fee as required under the examination by-laws applicable in the case. However, vide communication dated 8. 9. 2004, the Board informed the appellant/ petitioner that on verification, marks in the subject of mathematics I were found to be correct. Being aggrieved, appellant/petitioner filed the Writ Petition No. 54275/2004 for issuing direction to recheek her answer book in presence of her representatives, which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 20. 12. 2004, in view of the fact that there was no provision for re-evaluation of the answer book, therefore, the question of rechecking/re-evaluation in presence of the candidate or her representative could not arise. Hence this appeal.

( 4 ) LEARNED counsel for the appellant Shri Shiv Kant Pandey has submitted that there has been total fraud on the part of the respondents as they collected the fee of Rs. 100/- for rechecking, but they had done only the verification of the marks. Article 21 of the Constitution of India declares that getting education is a fundamental right of every citizen of this country and this view has been affirmed by the Honble Supreme Court in Unni Krishnan, J. P. and Ors. v. State of Andhra pradesh and Ors. , AIR 1993 SC 2178. The appellant is entitled to get the re-evaluation of her answer book in Mathematics I in her own presence or in the presence of her representative. She had been a extraordinary student and she had won the prize in the past, therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

( 5 ) ON the other hand Shri S. P. Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents has vehemently opposed the appeal contending that there is no provision in the examination bye-laws or re-evaluation of the answer book and in absence thereof, the Court cannot issue a direction for re-evaluation of her answer book and under no circumstances in her presence, and it is for the Board to take a policy decision. Even if the validity of the bye-laws is challenged, it is not permissible for the Court to examine the issue being a matter of policy decision and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

( 6 ) WE have considered the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the record including the record of the writ petition.

( 7 ) WE do not find any material on record to show that the appellant has been a student of extraordinary calibre. The award won by her is in playing Chess and not in the academic field as it appears from the record of the writ petition.

( 8 ) THE appellant had deposited a fee of Rs. 100/- on 27. 4. 2004, for which the receipt has been issued, a copy of which has been filed in the writ petition. From the said receipt, it appears that they have received the fee for R/c, which may mean rechecking. The appellant for reasons best known to her did not consider it proper to file the application submitted by her, either before the writ Court or in appeal. Merely because the