SHETHNA, J. - (1.) THE petitioner-student appeared in Higher Secondary Examination, 1998 from the respondent Board but was declared failed in two subjects - (1) Biology and (2) Agronomy which is clear from his marksheet at Annex. 1. He has got 11 and 13 marks respectively out of 54 in the subjects of Biology and Agronomy. According to him, he was expecting 25 and 28 marks respectively in the aforesaid subjects as he did well in these subjects. He applied for scrutiny of his marks in above two papers and also deposited the requisite fees on 1. 7. 98 (Annex. 2 ). Without waiting for the reply from the Board about his retotalling of marks, the petitioner has filed this petition challenging the Regulation 13 (5) of Chapter 16 (XVI) of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, 1957 (for short `the Re-gulations') and prayed that the same may be declared ultra vires and quashed. He has further prayed that the respondent Board be directed to re evalule/recheck the petitioner's answer books of Biology and Agronomy subjects of High Secondary Examination, 1998 and to communicate the result of rechecking.
(2.) REGULATION 13 (5) which is reproduced by the petitioner at page 3 of his petition is as under: " 13 (5)The work of scrutiny does not include re-examination of the answer-books of a candidate. It consists of rechecking the marks entered in the answer books with a view to seeing whether there has been any mistake in totalling the marks assigned to the individual questions or in the form of omitting the marks assigned to any question. " In the entire petition, nowhere it is stated that how the said Regulation is ultra vires or unconstitutional. It is the only submission in the petition that because of the above quoted Regulation 13 (5), the answer-books of the petitioner will not be re-checked but simply his marks would be re-totalled. Thus, if any error is committed while checking the answer-books, the same would not be detected and rectified because under Regulation 13 (5), the work of scrutiny does not include re-examination of the answer-books of a candidate and it consists of only rechecking the marks entered in the answer books with a view to see whether there has been any mistake in totalling the marks assigned to the individual questions or in the form of omitting the marks assigned to any question. Learned counsel Mr. Choudhary for the petitioner was unable to point out that how the aforesaid Regulation 13 (5) was anyway illegal, ultra vires or unconstitutional. He only tried to submit that while examining the answer-book of the peti-tioner, if the examiner has missed one or two answers written by the petitioner in his answer-book, then for no fault of the petitioner, he should be made to suffer. This is an hypothetical argument. If this argument is accepted and if it is held that Regulation 13 (5) is ultra vires on this ground, therefore, direction was required to be issued to the Board to re-check the answer-book of the candidate who failed in the examination, then it would amount to opening a pandora's box and number of students who are failing, who assess their marks themselves, will apply for rechecking which task is practically impossible for the University. The Court cannot decide the cases on surmises or conjectures, therefore, such type of hypothetical argument cannot be accepted. Learned counsel Mr. Shishodia for the respondent Board has rightly relied upon a judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case Maharastra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education and another vs. Paritosh Bhupesh Kur-marsheth, etc. (1) (See relevant para 20 ). As held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Paritosh's case (supra), the court cannot sit in judgment over the wisdom of the policy evolved by the Legislature and the subordinate regulation-making body. It may be a wise policy which will fully effectuate the purpose of the enactment or it may be lacking in effectiveness and hence calling for revision and improvement. But any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and the Court cannot strike it down on the ground that in its opinion, it is not a wise or prudent policy, but is even a foolish one, and that it will not really serve to effectuate the purposes of the Act.
(3.) AS per Regulation 13 (5), the work of scrutiny does not include re-examination of the answer-books of a candidate. It consists of rechecking the marks entered in the answer books with a view to see whether there has been any mistake in totalling the marks assigned to the individual questions or in the form of omitting the marks assigned to any question. Thus, Regulation 13 (5) clearly exclude re-ex-amination of the answer books of a candidate while doing the scrutiny work. In my considered opinion, it was perfectly within the competence of the Board, rather it was its plain duty to apply its mind and decide as a matter of policy relating to the conduct of the examination as to whether disclosure and inspection of the answer books should be allowed to the candidates or not, whether and to what extent the verification of the result should be permitted after the results have already been announced and whether any right to claim re-evaluation of the answer-books should be recognized or provided for. In view of the above discussion, I do not find any substance or merits in this petition. Accordingly, it fails and is hereby rejected. And it is held that Regula-tion 13 (5) in Chapter 16 (XVI) of the Rajasthan Secondary Education Regulations, 1957 is legal and valid and not ultra vires to any provisions of the Constitution. ;