' Brief facts of the case are that petitioner appeared in B.D.S. (1st Annual) Examination, 2001. In Paper III of Oral Pathology/Medicine and Bacteriology she was declared as fail by six marks. The petitioner made an application under Regulation 23(b) of the Chapter VII of the Regulations regarding the Conduct of Examinations for re-evaluation of her said paper. This application was entertained and examined by the respondents and vide letter dated 27-6-2002, it was communicated to the petitioner that the respondents have not found that the answer book has not been justly evaluated, consequently, no indulgence was called for. This order is being assailed through the instant writ petition.
2. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends that the petitioner was declared fail only by six marks. If her paper is got re-examined by some independent Examiner, there is a probability that the petitioner might be able to save a year of her academic career.
3. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent contends that under Regulation 23 ibid, it is the exclusive jurisdiction of the Vice-Chancellor to satisfy himself in exceptional cases whether any re-evaluation is required or not. In the instant case, no exceptional circumstance was made out, therefore, re-evaluation was not possible.
4. I have considered the arguments of learned counsel for the parties.
5. For ready reference, Regulation 23 is reproduced as follows:-- "The Vice-Chancellor or an officer authorized by him may, on receipt of an application in the prescribed form addressed to the Vice-Chancellor and accompanied by a fee of Rs,100 per subject, (A and B), satisfy himself that:--
(a) the result of the applicant has been correctly compiled and declared (this will include checking of answer-books, award lists and result sheets);
(b) the answer-book is in the handwriting of the candidate himself. (in exceptional cases, the Vice- Chancellor may in his discretion, allow the answer-book to be shown to the candidate or his guardian for verification of handwriting). (This, however, shall not fatter the discretion of the Vice- Chancellor to get a particular answer-book or answer-books re-examined in exceptional cases where there is a strong ground to believe that the same have not been justly evaluated.)
' Provided further that the benefit of grant of average marks will not be given to candidates in cases of re-checking of answer-books after declaration of their results, if their answer-book/s is/are lost at the time of re-checking. They will, however, have the option to reappear in the paper/s in the next examination, if otherwise eligible.
'The candidate will also be allowed to claim refund of fee for rechecking."
' A bare reading of the said regulation makes it abundantly clear the Vice-Chancellor has been given jurisdiction to cater some special and extraordinary cases in which his indulgence is necessary to meet the ends of justice. If re-evaluation is to be ordered as a matter of course, it would open a flood gate and every candidate would make an application and then there would be no end to it. To make out a case for indulgence of the Vice-Chancellor, applicant is required under the said regulation to make out an exceptional case. Since, the learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to point out any exceptional circumstances in the case, therefore, the order dated 27-6- 2002 is not required to be interfered in Constitutional jurisdiction. This petition is accordingly dismissed.