Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rinu Agrawal vs Rani Durgavati University, Jabalpur on 25 July, 2017
WP-3705-2017
(RINU AGRAWAL Vs RANI DURGAVATI UNIVERSITY, JABALPUR)
25-07-2017
ORDER
25.7.2017 In this petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution, petitioner has prayed for a direction for revaluation of answer sheets for the subjects mentioned in para-7.1 of the petition.
2. In the petition it is averred that in the college one teacher, namely, Madam Gill helped another student Ms Shobhna Gupta in copying. On the one hand she helped Ms Shobhna Gupta and on the other hand made improper allegations against the petitioner. Petitioner was insulted in the examination hall. In December,2015 in the paper of Company Law, Ms Shobhna Gupta indulged into activity of copying. Because of such act of Ms Shobhna Gupta, petitioner was disturbed. Ms Shobhna Gupta was caught red handed by one male teacher. Petitioner made request to change her seat because of said incident. On this, Ms Shobhna Gupta insulted her and used filthy language against her. Madam Gill came there and in place of advising Shobhna Gupta, petitioner's paper and answer sheets were snatched. Her papers were thrown away. Petitioner has received various threatening from Ms Shobhna Gupta.
3. In para 5.1 of the petition, it is averred that she has serious doubt that because of said incident, her valuation in fifth semester was not properly done. The mark sheet is filed as Annexure P/1. Similarly, it is averred that in sixth semester in the fourth paper i.e., Forensic Science and in moot court, less numbers were given to the petitioner. Her moot court diary was properly written. Petitioner gave correct answers to all questions except one. More numbers were given to other students. Petition submitted an application for retotalling but no decision has been taken. She has spent a huge amount in petrol while repeatedly approaching the University authorities. In nutshell, it is prayed that copies may be summoned to examine whether revaluation is required or not. Petition criticized the stand of the respondents that the answer sheets are destroyed. She submits that as per the date of declaration of result of LLB sixth semester i.e. 3.3.2017, the period of six months is not over.
4. Prayer is opposed by Shri M.M.Verma, learned counsel for the University. He relied on the return filed by the University.
5. No other point is pressed by the parties.
6. I have heard the parties and perused the record.
7. Petitioner has made serious allegations against one student and one teacher. Nobody has been impleaded eonminee. In view of law laid down in Medley Minerals India Ltd Vs. State of Orissa-(2004) 12 SCC 390, State of Punjab Vs. Chaman Lal Goyal -(1995) 2 SCC 570 and Rajendra Kumar Agrawal Vs. State of U.P-(2015) 1 SCC 642, such allegations cannot be accepted unless persons against whom allegations are made, are impleaded by name. The petitioner herself has not made any efforts to obtain the answer sheets under the Right to Information Act,2005. There is no material before this court which gives support to the averments of the petition that petitioner was subjected to improper valuation. The Division Bench of this court in Dheeraj Pandey and another Vs. State of M.P -2014(3) MPLJ-147 held that unless and until a case is made out to show that answer sheets were not valued properly, merely on the basis of vague and unspecified allegations, no directions can be issued to revaluate the answer sheets. This court further observed that under RTI Act, the student can obtain the answer sheets and demonstrate the illegality (if any). When petitioner fails to discharge its burden, no direction can be issued on the basis of vague allegations unsupported by any cogent material.
8. In the present case, as noticed, the present petition is based on allegations. Petitioner has not filed an iota of material to support such allegations. In absence thereto, no interference can be made by this court. Accordingly, this petition is disposed of by reserving liberty to the petitioner to obtain the answer sheets under the RTI and thereafter make a fresh claim by demonstrating that the answer sheets have not been valued properly. Petition stands disposed of.
(SUJOY PAUL) JUDGE MKL