( 1. ) APPELLANT Ku. Neha Indurkhya has filed this appeal under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent, against the order dated 24-10-2002, passed in Writ Petition No. 4116/2002, whereby petitioners petition seeking revaluation of her answer-papers of the Subjects of English, Physics and Mathematics, was dismissed.

( 2. ) THE appellant appeared in the Final Examinations for Class XIIth, conducted by respondent Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education, in the year 2002.

( 3. ) THE appellant on her own assessment was expecting very good marks for her performance in the Subjects of English, Physics and Mathematics. On receiving her mark-sheet she was shocked to note that she could secure only 12, 18 and 19 marks in the Subjects of English (Gen.), Physics (Theory) and Mathematics, The appellant, therefore, applied for retotalling of Marks" in the above mentioned three subjects, by depositing the requisite fee as per the relevant regulation.

( 4. ) THE appellant being disappointed and frustrated on account of the non-fructuation of her hopes and expectation, based on self-assessment of her performance in the examination and labouring under an impression that her performance has not been properly evaluated, filed a petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, for a direction to the respondent to produce her answer-books of the above subjects in the Court and for revaluation of these answer-papers by a Competent Valuer.

( 5. ) THE respondent Board in their return denied the appellants averments and contended that in the year 2002, the Board has formulated new guidelines of valuation as a step towards making the examinations more valid, reliable, comprehensive and elaborate. It was further contended that the Board after receiving the appellants application got her answer-papers of the Subjects of English (General), Physics (Theory) and Mathematics verified and as no discrepancy or fault revealed, the appellant was informed about no Change, in the marks obtained by her.

( 6. ) THE learned Single Judge, on considering the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, declined to interfere in the matter and dismissed the petition.

( 7. ) SHRI Rajendra Tiwari, the learned Senior Counsel, vehemently argued that the Writ Court has erred in not directing the respondent for revaluation of the appellants answer-papers of the subjects of English, Physics and Mathematics.

( 8. ) SHRI P. D. Gupta, the learned Counsel for the respondent Board, relying upon a Division Bench decision of this Court, in the case of M. P. Board of Secondary Education and Anr. v. Ku. Vinita Rupra, reported in 1998 (1) MPLJ 595, contended that as there is no provision of revaluation in the M. P. Board of Secondary Education Regulations, the appellants petition has rightly been dismissed.

( 9. ) RESPONDENT Board is a statutory body constituted under Section 3, of the M. P. Madhyamik Shiksha Act, 1965 (for short the Act ). It is the duty of the Board to take all necessary steps to make examinations more valid, reliable, comprehensive and elaborate. Section 28, of the Act, confers powers on the Board to make Regulations for carrying into effect the provisions of the Act. In exercise of the said power, respondent Board framed regulations known as M. P. Board of Secondary Education Regulation, 1965 (hereinafter referred to as regulation ).

( 10. ) BEFORE considering the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties, it would be useful to reproduce Regulation 119, of the Regulations, which reads as under:-

"119. A candidate who has appeared at an examination of the Board may apply to the Secretary for the scrutiny of his marks and the rechecking of his result in accordance with the rules framed by the Board. "

The learned Counsel for the appellant does not disputes that Regulation 119 does not expressly provide for revaluation of Answer Papers. "

( 11. ) THE desirability/permissibility of revaluation of Answer Papers in the examination conducted