SAW/721/07 1 JUDGMENT IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR D.B. CIVIL SPECIAL APPEAL (WRIT) NO.721 of 2007 For Approval and Signature : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.M.PANCHAL HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN ====================================================== 1 Whether Reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2 To be referred to the Reporter or not ? 3 Whether their Lordships wish to see the fair copy of the judgment ? 4 Whether this case involves a substantial question of law as to the interpretation of the constitution of India, 1950 or any order made thereunder ? 5 Whether it is to be circulated to the civil judge ? ==================================================== Miss Divya Choudhary - Appellant Versus Rajasthan University of Health Sciences, Jaipur & Anr. - Respondents ====================================================== Appearance : Mr. Dinesh Mehta, for the appellant. Mr. B.P. Mathur, for the respondent. ====================================================== CORAM:HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.M.PANCHAL and HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE BHANWAROO KHAN Date : August 21, 2007 ORAL JUDGMENT (Per : HONOURABLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE MR.J.M.PANCHAL) SAW/721/07 2 JUDGMENT The instant appeal is directed against the order dated July 12, 2007 rendered by the learned Single Judge in S.B. Civil Writ Petition no.3941/2007 by which the prayers made by the appellant (1) to set aside the mark-sheet issued to her by the respondents (2) to set aside the revised result dated June 25, 2007 and (3) to direct the respondent no.2 to re- evaluate her result treating the answer given by the appellant to question no.77 of Physics paper and question nos.81, 82 and 83 of Chemistry paper as correct, are refused. The appellant appeared in the examination for RPMT-2007. The students who had to take examination were issued instructions for the examination. Accordingly, the appellant was also supplied one OMR answer sheet. The instructions for examination supplied to all the candidates mentioned inter alia as under:- “Each question paper shall be of 300 marks and shall contain 100 objective type questions. Each question shall have four option to answer, out of which only one shall be correct. (+3)marks shall be awarded for each correct answer. '-1' mark for a wrong answer and '0' for unattempted questions. All circles will be empty in the OMR answer sheets supplied in the examination hall. The candidate should blacken only one circle corresponding to the correct answer. No change in the answer once marked is allowed. If more than one circles are found blackened for the answer of one SAW/721/07 3 JUDGMENT question, it will be deemed as incorrect answer and shall be negatively marked (“-1” mark shall be awarded for such incorrect answer).” As far as paper of Chemistry is concerned, it indicates that in answer to question no.81, initially the appellant blackened the circle mentioned at (c) which was subsequently erased and circle no.(d) was blackened by the appellant. Similarly, in answer to question no.82, initially the appellant blackened circle (b) which was subsequently changed to (c) and in answer to question no.83, initially the appellant blackened the circle no.(d) which was subsequently changed to circle no.(b). As far as paper of Physics is concerned, in answer to question no.77, the appellant initially blackened the circle (d) which was subsequently changed to (a). On examination of the answer-sheet of the appellant, the appellant was awarded total 728 marks by result dated June 5, 2007. The respondent no.2 revised the result and awarded the appellant 751 marks by re-assessment order dated June 25, 2007. Thereupon, the appellant invoked extra ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution by filing S.B. Civil Writ Petition No.3941/2007 and claimed reliefs to which reference is made earlier. The learned Single Judge has dismissed the same by the impugned judgment giving rise to the instant appeal. SAW/721/07 4 JUDGMENT This Court has heard learned counsels for the parties and considered the documents forming part of the original petition. The contention of the learned counsel for the appellant that only one circle was blackened by the appellant, and therefore the appellant could not have been assigned negative marks, has no substance. From the record of the case, it is evident that initially the appellant had blackened one circle which was erased and subsequently another circle was blackened. Thus, the appellant had completely committed breach of instructions issued to the candidates for the examination. As more than one circles were found to have been blackened for the answer of one question, the respondent no.3 justified in treating the answer given by the appellant as incorrect and assigning negative marks accordingly. It may be mentioned that the answer-sheet submitted by the appellant was subjected to examination by the computer and the above-mentioned corrections made by the appellant in the answer-sheet were noticed. On re-appreciation of evidence, this Court is of the opinion that the view taken by the learned Single Judge, cannot be regarded as erroneous so as to warrant interference of this Court in the instant SAW/721/07 5 JUDGMENT appeal. The appeal therefore which lacks merits deserves summary dismissal. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal fails and is summarily dismissed. Notice is discharged. There shall be no order as to costs. [BHANWAROO KHAN ],J. [J.M.PANCHAL],ACTG.CJ. Praveen