IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 15969 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: October 21, 2008 Poonam Rani and others …Petitioners Versus Panjab University, Chandigarh and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Arun Bansal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ajaypal Singh Gill, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 and 3. Mr. Krishan Singh Dadwal, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?  2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?  3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?  M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to re-evaluate the Bio-Science paper of Ist Year, General Nursing Midwifery Course, of the petitioners, which was held in May 2008. Re-evaluation of other reappear papers of petitioner Nos. 12 and 20 in respect of the aforementioned course has also been sought. C.W.P. No. 15969 of 2008 2. The petitioners are doing the 3½ years General Nursing and Midwifery Course from Rattan Professional Education College, Sohana, Tehsil and District Mohali. In the examination held in October 2007, out of 60 students 30 were declared fail in the subject of Bio-Science. They again appeared in the examination held by the respondent Panjab University in May 2008. On 28.8.2008, the result was declared on internet and all were shown as reappear in the subject of Bio Science. In other words, they could not qualify the examination in the said subject. The primary grievance of the petitioners is that all over Punjab, in the examination conducted by the respondent Panjab University in May 2008 only about 10% students could qualify the examination in the subject of Bio Science. According to the petitioners, they could attempt the paper in three languages viz. English, Hindi or Punjabi. They have apprehended that perhaps the examiners were not aware of the system to opt a particular language and, thus, they have not properly evaluated the papers. In these circumstances, the petitioners as well as Principal of their college represented to the respondent University for reevaluation of their papers in the subject of Bio Science examination conducted in May 2008 (P-2 & P-3). 3. In the separate written statements filed on behalf of respondent Nos. 1 & 3 and respondent No. 2 the stand taken is that the examinations by the respondent Panjab University are conducted in accordance with the provisions contained in the Panjab University Calendar Volume III. In Chapter XXXII (c) relating to Re-evaluation of answer-books, there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer books of the examinations held in the Faculty of Medical Sciences. 2 C.W.P. No. 15969 of 2008 Thus, it has been asserted that the petitioners have no legal right seeking re-evaluation of their answer books because the same is not permissible in the statute book of the respondent Panjab University. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the paper book with their able assistance, we find no merit in the instant petition and the same deserves to be dismissed. The relevant regulation relating to re-evaluation of answer-books, as contained in Chapter XXXII (c) of the Panjab University Calendar Volume III, reads as under:- “The system of re-evaluation of answer-books will be continued. A candidate who wishes to seek re-evaluation of his/her answer-book/s may supply for re-evaluation to the Assistant Registrar (Re-evaluation), Panjab University, Chandigarh-160014 on the prescribed application form accompanied with a fee of Rs. 155/- per answer-book for Bachelor Degree level courses and Rs. 185/- for Post Graduate courses alongwith the detailed marks card/certificate, in original. 1. Re-evaluation is permissible in case of Annual, Supplementary, Bi-annual and Semester examination conducted by this University except in the following: (i) Examinations in the Faculty of Medical Sciences. (ii) Practical Examinations in different subject/s or paper/s; sessional marks, internal assessment, project report, dissertations, thesis and Viva voce.” 3 C.W.P. No. 15969 of 2008 5. A bare perusal of the aforementioned Regulation would make it evident that the case of the petitioners is not covered because there is a specific bar for re-evaluation in respect of examination in the Faculty of Medical Sciences as well as practical examinations in different subjects. However, re-evaluation of answer books in respect of Bachelor Degree and Post Graduate Degree courses has been made permissible. The petitioners are doing 3½ years General Nursing and Midwifery Course, which is undisputedly closely connected with Medical Sciences and is covered by the bar created by the aforesaid Regulation. Once there is no provision for re-evaluation of answer books in respect of General Nursing and Midwifery Course then no legal or vested right is available to the petitioners. Learned counsel for the petitioners has not been able to point out any other provision advancing the case of the petitioners. There is, thus, no merit in the instant petition and the same is liable to be dismissed. 6. In view of the above discussion, this petition fails and the same is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) October 21, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4