HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition [Cl No. 2295 of 2008 Petitioners Versus Nimesh Baraiya & others Respondents Pt. Ravi Sankar Shukla University 8a others And Writ Petition [Cl No. 3329 of 2008 Petitioners Respondents Pt. Ku. Laxmi 81, another Versus Ravi Sankar Shukla University 85 others Post for Judgment on/lfaay of January, 2009. WM Sd/- ‘7 Satish K. Agnihotri Judge ¢ 1N THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR w.P. (C) No. 2295 of 2008 Petitioners 1 . Nimesh Baraiya, Son of Sri K. L.‘Baraiya, aged about 22 years, resident of Shristi Colony, Qtr N0. 95, Kamala College Road, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. Rupendra Das, Son of Sri Pramod Das, aged about 22 years, resident of village 85 Post : Mandirhasaud, Raipur (CG) 3. Yashpal Kashyap, Son of Y.R. Kashyap, aged about 23 years, resident of plot No. 33, Street No.8, Zone III, New Adarsh Nagar, Durg (CG) 4. Lav Kumar Verma, Son of Sri M.L.Verma, aged about 23 years, Mahesh Bhavan, G E Road, Raipur (CG) 5. Sudhir Kumar Jain, Son of Sri S.L.Jain, aged about 23 years, new Hospital, Kota, Raipur (CG) 6. Bharat Kallouje, Son of Sri Anand Kallouje, aged about 22 years, resident of Dudhadhar Villa chowk, Matapara, Raipur (CG) Praful Tarnhane, Son of Sri Dilip Tamhane, aged about 23 years, C—31, Gayatri Nagar, Shankar Nagar, Raipur (CG) Versus Respondents 1. Pt. Ravi Sankar Shukla University through its Vice Chancellor, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 2. The Assistant Registrar (Examination) Pt. Ravi Sankar Shukla University, ' Raipur, Chhattisgarh. 3. The Director/ Main Controller Government Engineering College, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Director, National Institute of Technology, Raipur (institute of National Importance) GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. AND w.P. (C) No. 3329 of 2008 Petitioners 1. Ku. Laxmi D/o Shri Kanhaiyalal, aged about 25 years, resident of House No. 210, Samta Colony, behind Pandey Nursing Home, Raipur, C.G. 2. Babita Kumari Sharma, D/o Shri Raj Narayan Ram Sharma, aged 24 years, resident o‘f Qr. No.4 — F, stet No. 28, Sector 4, Bhilainagar, Durg C.G. Versus Respondents 1. Pt. Ravi Sankar Shukla University through its Vice Chancellor, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Assistant Registrar (Examination) Pt. Ravi Sankar Shukla University, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. The Director/Main Controller Government Engineering College, Raipu, Chhattisgarh. i * r The Director, National Institute of Technology, Raipur (institute of National Importance) GE Road, Raipur, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA (SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri J.) Shri T. K. Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioners. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, Advocate for the respondents No. 1 and 2t Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, Advocate for the respondents No. 3 and 4. JUDGMENT (Passed on this / ’1’Day of January, 2009) Both the above writ petitions, involving common facts and the same question of law, are being disposed of by this common order. 2. The petitioners, by this petition { in W.P.(C) No. 2295/2008 } impugn the order dated 28.3.2008 (Annexure P/ 5), passed by the Director National Institute of Technology, Raipur (Respondent No.4) and, seek a direction to the respondents to issue mark sheets relating to lst semester examination held in May, 2006 on the basis of the result of the revaluation. The impugned order dated 28.3.2008 reads as under:— “The facility of revaluation to supplementary candidates provided by the Institute was rejected by Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur. The matter was referred to the Chancellor, His Excellency the Governor of Chhattisgarh in the meeting held on 25th March, 2008 at Raj Bhawan, it was suggested that such students who had been declared successful in revaluation (Supplementary examination) should be advised to appear in the forthcoming examination respective semester to avoid any complication in future. Final decision in this regard is awaited.” .a3/ 0&7 Shri T. K. Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners are students of 4th year in the respondent No.4 institute. The petitioners appeared in the examination of 1st Semester in the month of April 2006 and they got compartments in one or two subjects. The petitioners in Writ Petition (C) No. 3329/2008 had appeared in the examination of 4th Semester in the month of April, 2006 and applied for revaluation. They have passed their examination of 8th semester in the year 2007. They are also aggrieved by the same impugned order dated 28.3.2008. 4. The respondent No.4 institute issued a notice dated 17.8.2006 (Annexure P/ 1) that the candidates who intend to seek revaluation of the answer—sheets of supplementary examination, can submit application for revaluation of the answer-sheets in the prescribed form from 18thAugust, 2006 to 26th August, 2006. Accordingly, the petitioners submitted their applications for revaluation with prescribed fees. The result of revaluation was declared in the month of December, 2006 (Annexure P/2 & P/3), declaring the petitioners as passed in the respective subjects. 5. On the basis of the result of revaluation, the petitioners were allowed to appear in the further examinations of higher classes, thereby the petitioners were to appear in next examination, which was to commence from 19m April, 2008. In the meantime the impugned order dated 28.3.2008 (Annexure P/ 5) was issued, whereby the facility of revaluation of the answer—sheets to the supplementary candidates, provided by the institute was rejected by the Pt. Ravi Shankar University. The matter was referred to the Governor of Chhattisgarh that was stated to be pending .54/ p consideration. Being aggrieved, the petitioners submitted a representation on 9.4.2008 (Annexure P/6), which has not yet been considered and decided by the concerned authority. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioners were not at fault. They had acted in accordance with the notice issued by the respondent/institute for revaluation. In case of some other similarly situated candidates, who had applied for revaluation of the answer-sheets of the supplementary examination, mark—sheets were issued by t-he respondent/institute, duly countersigned by the respondent No.2/university authorities. Thus, thisis a case of discrimination and arbitrariness. Shri Ajay Dwivedi, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.1 and 2, in response, would submit that it is true that the > revaluation of answer-sheets in the supplementary examination was permitted and the mark—sheets issued by the respondent/institute was countersigned by the university authorities in some cases but the same was done by mistake; The university has not taken any steps to withdraw those mark- sheets, which were issued after taking into consideration the marks obtained by the candidates after revaluation of the answer—sheets of supplementary examination. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No. 3 and 4 would submit that the petitioners are entitled to get mark—sheets, having declared successful in revaluation of the answer sheets in which they got supplementary, duly counter signed by the university authorities. wf’ Shri Rajput would further submit that the respondent/institute has taken a decision in its academic council on 14.8.2006 to permit revaluation of the answer-sheets of the supplementary examinations and the information was sent to the respondent/university on 20.7.2007 (Annexure R-4/2). The respondent/university has not taken any decision and has not intimated about non—approval of the resolution passed by the institute. Thus,kit is deemed to have been accepted by the respondent/university. The subsequent order passed after a period of more than one year cannot be permitted to adversely affect the career of the students, particularly‘when most of the candidates have been issued mark—sheets, duly countersigned by the respondent/university. 10. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents appended thereto. 11. It is evident that the petitioners applied for revaluation on the basis of the‘notice dated 17.8.2006 (Annexure P/ 1), wherein it v. was clearly provided that the petitioners and other similarly situated candidates who had appeared in the supplementary examinations are permitted to apply for the revaluation of the answer-sheets. The said notice was issued pursuant to the resolution dated 14.8.2000 (Annexure R-4/1). The university authorities have not taken any action on the basis of the notice, rather countersigned some of the mark-sheets which were issued after taking into consideration the marks obtained in revaluation of the answer-sheets, as is evident from Annexure P/4. 12. The reliance of the university on clause 2 of Statute No. 34 in case of autonomous college may not be available and applicable 5&9 Ga to the facts of the case, Where the autoi’xomous college has taken a decision to permit revaluation of the answer-sheets and the same was intimated to the university, immediately. The university has not, in turn, responded which is deemed to have been accepted” 13. In View of the foregoing,_ this may be a case of discrimination and arbitrariness. Thus both the petitions are allowed. The respondent authorities are directed to issue mark-sheets after taking into consideration the marks obtained by the petitioners in revaluation of the answer-sheets, duly countersigned by the concerned authorities of the respondent/university as well as the institute. No order asto costs. ~¢\K Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur W ‘