S.N. Srivastava, J. - (1.) In the relief column, the petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the respondent No. 1 to produce the entire answer books of II, III and IV papers of M. Sc. (Bio-chemistry) and further a writ of mandamus directing the respondent No. 1 to give the correct marks on the answer book of the petitioner
(2.) A brief resume of necessary fact is that the petitioner who had appeared in M. Sc final year examination from Allahabad University with Bio-chemistry as a subject secured 70 marks out of 100 in Intermediary Metabolism, 53 out of 100 in Molecular Cellular biology, 55 out of 100 in Microbiology and Immunology, and 52 out of 100 in Biochemistry of Health and Disease and Research Methodology. The aggregate marks obtained by the petitioner was 294 marks out of 500. The petitioner filed the petition with the allegations that he had swotted hard in all subjects and had answered all questions very correctly and further that: he should have been awarded much higher marks in the aforesaid subjects.
(3.) On 27.7.2006, this Court passed the following order- "In view of serious allegations, I direct counsel for the University to produce answer books alongwith question paper of all the subjects/papers of M.Sc final year Biochemistry on 11th August 2006. The answer scripts have been produced by the learned Counsel for the University today alongwith reports of Prof. Dr. Dwijendra K. Gupta, Head, Department of Bio-chemistry, University of Allahabad separately under sealed covers. It would appear from a perusal of the reports submitted separately for each of the papers that there is no change in the tally of marks. This Court had also a glance through the answer scripts. The learned Counsel for the petitioner was also shown the answer scripts and she seemed to be convinced that there was no error In computing/totaling of marks and further there is no question left un-evaluated or unmarked by the examiner but at the same time, she vociferously pressed the demand to conduct re-evaluation of the answer scripts stating that the petitioner has been a victim of very hard-marking. The learned Counsel also prayed for compassionate view regard being had to the bright future ahead of the petitioner. Per contra, learned Counsel for the University vehemently opposed re-evaluation drawing attention of the Court to the fact that there is no provision wherein a candidate may be entitled to ask for re-evaluation of his answer book. He also drew attention of the Court to the fact that there is a provision for scrutiny only wherein the answer books are seen for the purpose of checking whether all the answers given by a candidate have been examined and whether there has been any mistake in the totaling of marks of each question and. It was also pointed out that the marks have been noted correctly on the cover age of the answer book which would be borne out from the reports of the Head of the Department, there is no change in the status of the marks from a close scrutiny of the answer scripts no ground is made out warranting interference by this Court.;