I IN THE HI OUH CF KAR\TAKA AT BANGALOEF DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY CF JUNE 1998 BEFORE THE HONBLE MR.JUSTICE TIBATH S. TIIAKLR Q618 BETWEEN: A,S ,Chidananda ma5or, aged about 23 years Son of Sri .A,N,hivabasappa R/o,Nc,76, Upstairs Nehru Circle She shad ripuram BangaIore2O. ,.. Petitioner, (by Sri. B,Ramaswarny Iyengar, Mv,) AND: i,The State of Karnataka reptc., by its Secretary Dept. of Education M,S .Buildings, Vjdhana Soudha Bang a1ore1, 2,The Rejstrar (Evaluation) Bangalore University Bangalore, 3,The Principal Kalpataru Institrte of Technology, Titt Pin 572 202 Turnkur District, Karnataka, .., Respondents (by Sri,S,G,Bhagan, Adv,) This writ petition i filed under Articles 26 and 227 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent University to produce the Answer Scripts of tho petitioner pertaining 2 —2— to production operation Management (POM) of 8th Semester B,E, Examination held in August 1997, bearing Reg.No.93P8006 and also quashing the result in respect of POM of 8th Semester Examination held in August 1997 bearing Registration No,93P8006 vide Annex,J & K so far it relates the petitioner and further direct the respondent University to evaluate the answer books of the petitioner pertaining to POM of 8th Semester B.E. (Mechanical) Examination held in August 1997 bearing Reg. No.93PB006 again by another examiner and to declare tF result of the said evaluation expediticusly and also order for issue of the marks sheet of 8th Semester forthwith, This writ petition is coming on fox preliminary hearing this day, the court made the following:— ORDER The petitioner appeared for his Mechanical Engineering Examination conducted by the respondent University in August 1997. The result of the examination announced in January 1°)8 showed that he had failed in one of the subjects namely Production Operation Management 4 In other subjects he as declared to have passed. The petitioner then applied for revaluation of the answer script in “Production Operation Management”. Revaluation of the answer script was carried 4 4% * S a a3e out, but the .nd result remained the See. There was therefore no material diff erence •ven in the net outcome of the over all result of the examination. Aggrieved, the petit xcner has now filed this writ petition £ or a mandamus directing the respondent. iMiv.rsity to get the script revalued once over again. 2. Counsel for the petitioner argued that the petitioner had secured good marks in all other subject which made it unlikely that he woulc’ fail an one of them. He submitted that in the inter at of justice and for the satisfaction cf the petitioner yet another revaluation could be ordered at te hands of soma other examiner. I see no reason to do so. The right to seek revaluation must flow from the statute. If it does as in the present , the or vested in ittiversity stands exhausted, once te petitioner’s answer script was subjected 0’ . .4.. to revaluation. There is athaittedly no provision ii’ the statutes for a second revaluation. In the circumstances, I see no reason how a fresh revaluation of the script could be ordered by this court only for the satisfaction of the petitioner or only because he feels that his performance in a partilular subject has not been properly assessed by the examiners. There is no merit in this writ petition which is dismissed in liatne. mph/a