Madhya Pradesh High Court
Shailendra Singh vs Kulpati Devi Ahilya Vishwavidhyalaya on 17 January, 2018
Digitally signed by Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Santosh
DN: c=IN, o=High Court of Madhya
Pradesh, ou=Administration,
postalCode=452010, st=Madhya Pradesh,
Kumar Tiwari
2.5.4.20=0302427ede38493e8c0c43f0be7
a802b914f6c4be69964f9f552be6e645bacc
8, cn=Santosh Kumar Tiwari
Date: 2018.01.23 06:44:03 +05'30'
THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
WP No.20564/2017
Indore dated : 17/01/2018
Shri Rohan Chouhan, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri Rahul Sethi, learned counsel for the
respondents/DAVV, Indore.
Heard.
By this writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondents to undertake the exercise of revaluation of answer script, by appointing competent valuer/constituting appropriate committee of the petitioner of subject Indian Constitution and Comparative Criminal, in relation to Ist semester of L.L.M. course held in May, 2017.
2. The facts of the case are that the petitioner is a regular student of Masters in Law (L.L.M) pursing his course of study from Devi Ahilya Devi Vishwavidyala, Indore. In May, 2017 the petitioner appeared in the examination of L.L.M. Ist semester, in two subjects, in one of the subject Indian Constitution and Comparative Criminal, conducted by the respondent No. 1/University with Roll No. 61550334.
3. On 12/07/2017, the result of the examination was declared and the petitioner obtained 194 marks out of 400 and was declared fail on the basis of aggregate numbers. In the subject of Indian Constitution has got 41 marks and in Comparative Criminal he got 42 marks. After declaration of result, he approached the University and applied for the inspection and review/revaluation of answer script as well as for the re-totaling of the marks obtained by him in subject- Indian Constitution and Comparative Criminal. Upon inspection of the answer script by the petitioner, he made certain objections in the prescribed format in the University and a request was made for review/revaluation of the answer script.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the result of the review was declared by the University on 30/10/2017 and in the subject of Comparative Criminal 6 marks was added and there is 'No Change' in the marks of Indian Constitution of the petitioner. He has drawn our attention to the representation (Annex. P/3) and submitted that due to scarcity of 1 marks, he was failed, therefore, he prayed for revaluation of answer script.
5. In the case of Neha Indurakhya Vs. Board of Secondary Education (2003) 3 MPLJ Page-368, wherein the Division Bench of this Court has held that revaluation can be permitted only if there is any statutory rule, regulation or provision for the same. In this case, nothing has been brought to our notice to say that the revaluation is permissible.
6. Learned counsel for the respondents submits that relying on the decision of Neha Indurakhya (supra), this Court in number of petitions, passed the order directing the petitioner to approach to the University, get the answer sheet under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and may seek revaluation by indicating the apparent error in the valuation of the answer sheet and take steps as may be permissible under law.
7. On due consideration of the aforesaid so also the fact that there is no statutory Rules and Regulations for revaluation and in view of the law laid down in the case of Neha Indurakhya (supra), we cannot make any indulgence in the matter nor any writ of mandamus for directing the respondent/University for revaluation, as prayed, is made out. The petitioner if aggrieved may approach the University to get the answer sheet under the Right to Information Act and may seek revaluation by indicating the apparent error in the valuation of answer sheets and take other steps as may be permissible under the law. The University shall not destroy the answer sheet of the petitioner for a period of ten days from today.
8. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
Certified copy as per rules.
(P.K. Jaiswal) (Virender Singh) skt Judge Judge