1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR WMT PETITION (Cl N0. ^....'...OF 2011 PETITIONER Ku. Seeta Sahu, D/o Shri Ramesh Sahu, Aged about - 25 years, R/o Village Biteulli, ^ ^^^^- Tahsil- Masturi, Police Station- F)/ .-^u^'\^' siPat' District ...-<^'\'^-'"' •••";^:->\$.^" Chhattisgarh. Bilaspur, VERSUS RESPONDENTS l." Guru Ghasi Das University, Bilaspur, through Central University, Incorporated under the provision of Cenfa-al University Act, 2009, Konhi, District BUaspur, through its Registrar, Guru Ghashi Das University, BUaspur, Chhattisgarh. 2. ControUer of Examination, Guru Ghasi Das University, Dista-ict- BUaspur, Chhattisgarh. 3. Vice ChanceUor , Guru Ghasi Das Universily, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. :Wu^ •^' WMT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^- ^^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH :^ILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENT WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2049 OF 2011 Ku. Seeta Sahu Versus Guru Ghasi Das University & Others Ap<? •^ Post for pronouncement of orders on the l^ day ofAugust, 2011 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.2049 OF 2011 PETITIONER Ku. Seeta Sahu RESPONDENT Versus Guru Ghasi Das University & Others (Writ Petition under Artides 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for respondents. (Delivered onthis /^'dayofAugust,2011) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to re-valuate the answer sheet of the petitioner by an expert and, then, declare the result and for the sufferance of the petitioner on account of not getting the re-valuation done again, the petitioner may be awarded compensation. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, are that the petitioner appeared in M.A. (Previous) Sanskrit paper as a regular student in the examination held in the month of March, 2010 from the CMD Post Graduate College, Bilaspur. In addition, the petitioner appeared in other papers namely; Vadik Bhasha, Sahitya, Viyakaran Bhasha, Vighyan, Pali or Prakrit, Darshan, Sahitya Shastra, Saundarya Shastra & Kabya. She secured almost first class marks in other subjects except in Darshan subject. It was found that she was awarded only 3 marks in Darshan paper. The petitioner made an application for re-valuation of Darshan paper, but the same was not re-valuated, as she did not receive any information. OM} ui sysdxe X!S se AUBUJ se Aq ps}en|BA-aj ueaq 'pe^ U! 'seq qoiqM 'i3eL]s jsmsue aqi ^o uoiieniBA-ej ^ Bui^sss si jeuoiiiisd eqt 'uo!ii}sd siqi Aq teq} iiiuqns jaqyn^ p|noM eABiSBAuys yt|s •psfqns ueL)Sjea ui S>]JBUJ io aBueqO ou SBM 3jaL|} 'uoiienieA-aj u} jeye ueAg 'ZOOS-£-9S psiep uoiieoyiiou eqi jsd se AiisjeAiun sqi episino LUOJ^ i88L|s jaMsue sqt jo uO!ien|BA-sj u} jo^ eeniuuujoo yadxs ^o sjequjeLU £ i0 |8ued sqt 01 pejje^ej SGM jeueLU aq} pue |,|.OZ-l.-Zl. uo uojieniBA-ej jo^ uoiieoiidde ue apeiu uieBe 943 'jsuoitiisd 941 0} U8AIB SEM SLUBS eq} pue psfqns ueysjea y> }8aqs jsmsue eq^ 10 Adoooioyd jo^ pei|dde jauoi}!i9d 941 'ueqsjea i0 }seqs jsMsue aqi ui S^JELU ^o 96ueL|o ou SBM ejeqi g'ON eoueuipjo 1° suoisiAojd eqi jepun spedxe OMI Aq uosenieA-ej jeye pue OI.OZ-9-1.1. uo UEL|Sjea pefqns ^o losys ^JBLU eqi i0 uo!}en|EA-sj }sjy jo^ paiidde jeuoi^isd 941 '/s/e/ offssBBns pue U8/i oissjjdns i0 At|in6 si jsuoiiiied eqt pue peAisouoositu si uoi}!iad aqi ^41 liaiqns p|noM 'siuepuodssj SL|I joi 6uuE9dde issunoo psujesi 'BAeiseAuqs !J4S 'pueq jaqio 9141 UQ •euop sem uoiteniBA-aj ou ieqi }uejedde si y 'pe^ pies eqi luoj^ 'sjo^ajsqi 'ieeqs jaMsue eqi ui peno||e )|JBUJ ou si sjsqi leq} puno^ sem 11 :jeuo!i!}ed SL|I 0} psi|ddns sem qoiqM 'tssqs jeMsue sqi ^o Adoo 94) p lesnjsd uo ieqi iiaiqns jsqyn^ p|noM !4iedui 's|/\| -jsuoitiisd eq} o) ssBeujep pue eousiueAuooui esneo 0} AjoieuiLuuosip '§ AjEj}!qjB SBM AijsjsAiun luspuodsej 94} ^o uoipe sq} 'snqi •S)|JBLU gg ueqi sse| 106 SAeq iou p|noo eL|s pue jsded ueqsjeQ ui suoitsanb eqi ||e peidLueuE peq jsuoiffled 9L|i 'jeuoiiitad eq} jo^ 6uueedde |esunoo psujesi 'iqiedui 's|/\| 01 6uipjooov rounds of re-valuation. They were independent experts and some were outside from the respondent University. Shri Shrivastava would next submit that as a matter of practice, the marks are not allotted against each question, but at the top of answer booktet, there is a sheet where the marks are written. In support of his contention, Shri Shrivastava placed reliance upon the decision of the Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Sen/ice Commission v. Mukesh Thakur and Another and this Court in Sarmistha Day v. State of Chhattisgarh & Others2. 6. The original answer sheet of the petitioner was produced before the Court. On perusal of the same, it is found that there is an endorsement of re-valuation done by the experts subsequently. The re-valuation case sheet was also produced wherein the secret code No. 1007 was allotted and it was found that the re-valuation was done by Dr. H.P. Dixit, Bhopal, on 3-2-2011, Dr. J.N. Tripathi, Bhopal, on 24-1-2011, and Dr. H.R. Raidas, Bhopal, on 29-2-2011 and they allotted 2, 3 & 3 marks, respectively. Thus, the allegation of the petitioner that there was no revaluation done, was contrary to the facts. 7. The Supreme Court in Himachal Pradesh Public Service Commission (supra) held that it was not permissible for the High Court to examine the question papers and answer sheets, particularly when the commission (experts) had assessed the answer sheets and the inter se merit. 1 (2010)63cc759 2 WP (CVNo.336 of 2009 (decided on 21-7-2010) 8. 10. 11 In Sarmistha Day (supra) wherein the relief sought for the by the petitioner therein for fresh re-valuation, after re-valuation was done by the experts 3 times, was rejected. For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, it appears that the petitioner is basing her claim on the basis of her belief. However, on re-valuation by experts, the marks allotted to the petitioner was consistent and there was no variation at all. Thus, this petition is misconceived and frivolous. As an upshot, the writ petition is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- Gowri Satish K. Agnihotri Judge