Satish K. Agnihotri, J. - (1.)THE writ petitioner, seeking a direction to the respondent to revalue her 2 answer book of Biology subject in the higher secondary public examination held in March, 2014 in respect of question No. 22 in Section 'B' and grant consequential marks, has come up with the writ petition. The petitioner, being minor, is represented through her father S.Chitrarasu.
(2.)THE case of the petitioner is that the petitioner obtained xerox copy of the answer book of Biology paper, wherein it was found that she had written four correct points, out of five points and as such, she was entitled to full three marks for the question, whereas she was awarded only one mark without any rhyme or reason.
The learned Single Judge, recording the fact that revaluation was already done, which did not result into increase in the mark and the same mark awarded earlier was maintained by the Revaluation Committee, comprising of three experienced Biology teachers, has rejected the request of the petitioner for a direction to the respondent for revaluation of Biology answer once again, on the ground that there was no provision for further revaluation. The writ petition was accordingly dismissed.

(3.)FEELING aggrieved, the petitioner has come up with the instant appeal, reiterating the same submission, pointing out that there is a mistake in awarding of mark in question No. 22 on the face of it. As per the key answer, if three points written out of five points, are correct, the candidate is entitled to full three marks. The petitioner had given four correct answers, but the mark awarded was only one, and as such, there was error apparent on the evaluation. It was next contended that under such circumstance, the court ought to direct further revaluation to subserve the interest of justice.