^3; HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition rQNo. 5637 of2008 PETITIONER RESPONDENT Vishwambhar Prasad Shanna, S/o Late Kriparam Sharma, aged about 76 years, Retire U.D.T. Head Mater, Wo village & Post Tham Khamharia, Distt. Durg(CG). VERSUS Registrar, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur (CG). (WRIT PETTTION UNDER ARTtCLE 226 OPTHE CONSTTTUTION OF DMDIA) fSB: Hon'bleMr.SatishK.Aauhotri.J.I Present : ShriB.K.Chakiabarty,Advocateforthepetitioner. None for the Tespondent. ORALORDER (Passed on 13al day of October, 2008) 1. Thepetitioner, being aggrieved byaward of27 marks outoflOO infirst paper, 9 marks out of 100 in second paper, 36 marks out of 100 in tliird paper and only 4 marks out of 100 in fourth paper in M.A. Previous (English Literature), has filed this petition seekmg a direction to the respondent university to re-check his answer sheets, wherein Ihe petitioner has been awarded 9 aad 4 marks in second and fourth papers respectively, and farther to conduct C.B.I. Enquiry or Enquiry by Economic Ofience Wing. 2. The only grouad ofchallenge is that the petitioner had done very wep in the examination andthis was his third attempt. Thus, the marks awarded by the es^erts are not proper No other grounds faave beenshown. ;Qn AU- —-•— c^ ».i. query, as to how much marks petitioner was awarded in the second attempt, leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner is unable to supply the infonnation. Prior to filing ofthis petition, the petitioner has approached fhe ofEice of the Chancellor of the respondent university on 22.11^006 (Annexure P/3). The office ofthe Chancellor, by order dated 18.05.2007 (Annexure P/7) has already written to the Vice Chancellor of the respondent university for consideration ofhis application. 4. Be that as it may, the petitioner has failed to establish a case, wherein tfais Court sUould show any equity in his favour. as noj record is available indicating that the petitioner had obtained veiy high marks in other papers. It is evident from the mark sheet. In other papers also, fhe petitioner has obtained 27 marks in first paper and 36 marks in Ifaird paper. The petitioner Would hardly clear third paper by obtainirig 36 percent marks. In all other papers, the petitioner has obtained less than 30 percentmarks. 5. It is not a case Where the Court should exercise its extraordinaiy jurisdiction fo interfere with the academic fuaetionmg ofthe respondent university. The papers are valued by the experts and there is no reason to interfere with the same. The petition is meritlessand deserves to be dismissed. The petition is accordingly dismissed summarilyf Sd/- sa^K.Agnibotn Judge Sahu