%^^K''/ :.*< --".'n<~ •*- f- c-y-^-w')^— IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (C.G.) WRIT PETITIONNO. ( C )-^o^ OF 2006 PETITIONER ^^ ^:^" /i^^y .<>-- RESPONDENT ^--Dilip Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Shri R.R.Bhardwaj , aged about 26 years, resident ofViUage Samdil, Post Office Rajpur, District BUaspur (CG). VERSUS Giiru Ghasidas University, Through Registrar, Bilaspur, Tahsil and District Bilaspur (CG). WRrLPETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226/ OF CONSTITUTION OF INDIA XI-HC-78 *fl*l^T<ih*l|ch C3L 3s?s(pncra', ®Tf).«'i6,Rtcii«y .^J.-f./.^..7ft7.^ 3n^?r'raw ('^fgarq^r) '^rR-fi* <rar3n^Tsbii=b v'-- BsnwHfeTsn^T 4.1.2007: Shri L.C. Das counsel for the| Heard. The petitioner has filed this the respondents to produce the ar| <<ii<ifa41-< iiticiTfffs^9 <l"it<i< ^srf^iran^T petitioner. petition with a prayer for a direction to iswer sheets of the petitioner for M.A. (Pre.) and M.A. (final) examinati|on and get the same re-evaluated. Grievance of the petitioner is tlfiat the petitioner appeared in M.A. (previous) examination 2004 an|d secured 268 out of 500 marks. Subsequently he appeared in M.A. Kfinai) examination - 2005 and secured 300 out of 500 marks. Being dis-sapsfied by the abovementioned marking, the petitioner appeared in Divisii|>n Improvement Examination for MA (previous) in the year 2006 and s^cured 267 out of 500 marks. He also appeared in Division Improvement been an outstanding student. Th^ in paper No. 2 and 4 and similarlyl 66, 64 and 64 marks respectively the Division Improvement Examjn^ evaluated and in the aforesaid circil be re-evaluated. Examination for M.A. (final) in the year 2006 and secured 278 out 500 m^rks. Again being dis-satisfied with the above said result, he applied for rei|;hecking and paid requisite fee therefor as per Annexure P-10, but howev^r no change in the marks obtained by the petitsoner has been communicated to him. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has mark sheets of IVI.A. (previous) and M.A. (final) would go to show that 1|he petitioner secured 61 and 62 marks in M.A. (final) examination he secured n papers No. 1, 2 and 4. However, in ition answer sheets were not properiy mstances the same may be directed to 5k XI-HC-78 *fl^cTTarH 'Svf •<ii<qi<i<i, ®Tfl+i'is,Ridiyy ^^f/.CD°^6iW[ 200 Sll^l wch (yit^oqsT) sn^T^rf^iR? ^ ??3TW flf?(T 3TI^T »i<iFfi<fl-fHiiciTfftet^<Ri+<;i< ^isrRttTsn^T Heard counsel for the pet|:ioner and perused the mark sheets obtained by the petitioner in vario|js examinations. From perusal of the mark sheets of the petitioner, i< is found that he appeared in the examination twice but the marM remained almost identical. For the purpose of re-evaluation of the ans'(ver sheets, directions cannot be issued in the absence of clear rules in thi^ regard. In this case the petitioner was permitted to appear for Division li|nprovement Examination and even in that examination the marks remaini^d unchanged which he had secured in the reguiar examination. Therefor^, no case is made out in favour of the petitioner for re-evaulation of the ar]swer sheets. In the result the petition bei|ig devoid of substance isiiable to be dismissed and the same is accordir giy dismissed. Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge P.T.O.