Madhya Pradesh High Court
Sunny vs Devi Ahilya Bai University, Indore on 2 May, 2018
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH
Pate no. 1
WP-8129-2018
(SUNNY Vs DEVI AHILYA BAI UNIVERSITY, INDORE)
Indore, Dated : 02-05-2018
Shri Aditya Kumar Bhargava, counsel for the petitioner.
By this writ petition filed under Article 226 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for revaluation of the
answer-script on the basis of Clause 9 of General Rules for Third
Years Law Course ( Semester System ) issued by Devi Ahilya
Vishwavidyalaya. As per Clause 9, revaluation of answer books
shall be allowed as per provision of ordinance no. 6 of University.
Learned counsel for the petitioner has failed to draw our attention.
Similar issue has been decided by this Court in W.P. no. 5362/2017
vide order dated 04/10/2017. The order dated 04/10/2017 reads as
under :
W.P. No.5362/2017
4/10/2017
Shri Kuldeep Pathak, learned counsel for the
petitioner.
Shri Rohit Mangal, learned Govt. Advocate,
for the respondent No.1/State.
Shri Nishit Wishard, learned counsel for the respondent Nos.2 and 3.
Heard.
By this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner is praying for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent Nos.2 and 3 to undertake the exercise of revaluation of answer script, by appointing competent valuer/constituting appropriate committee of the petitioner of subject General Pathology and Microbiology, in relation to supplementary examination of the petitioner for the II year B.D.S. Course held in October, 2016.
2 The facts of the case are that the petitioner is regular student of Bachelor of Dental Surgery(B.D.S.) pursuing his course of study from HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH Pate no. 1 the Index Institute of Dental Science, Indore. In October-November, 2016 the petitioner apeared in the supplementary examination of the B.D.S.II year course, in two subjects, in one of the subject was General Pathology and Microbiology, conducted by the respondent No.2/University with Roll No.502.
3. On 11/01/2017, the result of the examination was declared and the petitioner was declared fail in the subject - General Pathology and Microbiology, which the petitioner has obtained only 43 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 retotaling of the marks obtained by him in subject - General Pathology and Microbiology. 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 22/05/2017 and there is 'No Change' in the marks of the petitioner. He has drawn our attention to the representation dated 3/06/2017 and submitted that Question No.1, 2 (b) (c) and 3 (d) have not been checked properly and submitted that in some of the answers no marks has been awarded and in some of the answers to Questions less marks has been awarded to him and, 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 Govt. Advocate 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.
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: INDORE BENCH Pate no. 1 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/Board 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 the answer sheets and take other steps as may be permissible under the law. The university shall not destroy the supplementary answer sheet of the petitioner for a period of ten days from today.
8. With the aforesaid, the writ petition stands disposed of.
C c per as rules.
In terms of the order dated 04/10/2017 passed in W.P. no. 5362/2017, present writ petition is also dismissed.
C c as per rules.
( P.K.JAISWAL ) (S.K. AWASTHI)
JUDGE JUDGE
Digitally signed by
AMOL N MAHANAG
Date: 2018.05.03
15:15:02 +05'30'