HIGH GOURTOF JUDICATURE AT BtU^PUR. CHHATTIS®ARH S1NGLE BENCH: HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK.CJ. WRJTPETITLQfeLN0.1629^F 2006 PETLTIQNER Anuradha Kushari aged about 24 years Sto Utpal Kushari R/o Vidya Nagar, tSist. Bilaspur (C.G.) Vs. RESPONDENTS 1. Vice Chaneeltor, Guru Ghasi Das Unlveisity, Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. The Controller Guru Ghasi Das University, Bilaspur (C.G.) 3. The Principal, C.M.D. PG College Bilaspur (C.G.) Present: Smt. Renu Kochar, learned counset for the p^'rtioner. ORALORDER (Passedon Stn April, 2006) The petitioner - student having secured lower percentage of marks in the subjects of American Literature and Poetry in MA. (Flnal) Bnglish examination held in the year 2005 and thinking that her answer-scripts in the above two subjects were not properly valued, applled to the University for revaluation in tenns of regulation. The University having revalued the petitioner's answer-scripts m the above two subjects and wlthout finding any change in the marks even after the revaluaUon, issued an endorsement to the petitioner and similariy cireumstanced certain others which reads, "no change". Hence, this writ petition by the aggrieved petitioner-student. (2) The contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the endorsement issued by the University merely steting ftat "there te no change" would create a serious doubtas to whether the Univereity had in fact revalued the answer-scripts of the petitioner in the subjects <rf American Literature and Poetry properiy, because, those subjects are not mentioned in the endorsement. 1 thinR that th®above contention is technical, if not hyper-technical. The endorsement issued by the University has to be understood in the context of the feKts of the case. The pet'rtioner has applied for revaluation of answer-scripte in the subjects of American Literature and Poetry, and with reference to those subjecte endorsement is issued and, therefore, that endorsement is intanded to tell the petitioner - student that even after the revaluation of the answer- scripts in the above subjecls, there is no change in the marks. That is the only reasonable and feir way of understanding tie endorssment. No ground is made out for interference. The writ pet'rtion is, therefore, dismissed. Nocosts. Sd/- chiefJustfce