“ii“; \gvjgiaw @iE BENCH @ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATI'ISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PEmION (C) No. W é T /2o11 IN THE MATTER OF , : Gopoi Mishro, S/o Shri ND. Mishrc, Aged about 30 years, R/o A—l 7, Jonki Kunj, Vctsundharc Nogar, Roipur, Chhomsgcrh PETITIONER VERSUS RESPONDENT (. 1. Pf. Rovishnakar Shuklo University, Through ifs Vice- Chancellor, Doomar Tolab, Rcipur, Chhattisgorh / The Depufy Registrar (Exam), Pi. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Doomar Taiab, Raipur, Chhah‘isgarh -WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE WRIT, DIRECTION OR ORDER IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS OR CERTIORARI HIGH C01 JRT OF CHHATI‘ISGARH AT EU ,ASPI IR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1467 of2011 WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Fresent: Shri Ankit Singhal, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Neeraj Choubey, Advocate for the respondents. 0 R D F. R (Passed on 29Wember, 201 1) By this yetition, the petitioner seeks a, direction to the respondent- Univewity to declare the result of the petitiorier and iseue mark sheet to the petitioner for M.Com previous and final repeat examination held in March, 2010 without delay. The brief facts, as proj ected by the petitioner are that the marksheet. of the petitioner for the M.Com previous examination was issued in March—April, 2007 wherein the petitioner secured 46,80% and the marksheet for M.Com final was issued in March-April, 2008 wherein the petitioner secured 49.54% and in total, he was graded as second divisions Thereatter, the petitioner appeared in the repeat examination of M.Com previous and M‘Com fmal in Mareh. 2010. The result. of the said examination was not declared and as such, the petitioner made an application on 14.012011 (Annexure P/3) to the Chancellor of the respondent-University. One more notice was sent by the petitioner on 02.02.2011 but no result was declared Thus, this petition. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that under clause 9(ii) of the Ordinance No. 24, if the petitioner obtains less than 48% marks ofthe aggegate marks in previous and final ofthe examination taken together, the result is not to be declared and in case ifthe candidate has obtained more than that, the result may be declared. On the other hand. learned counsel appearing for the respondent- University relies on sub clause (vii) of clause 9 of the Ordinance é? PETITIONER : Gopal Mishra‘. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Pt. Ravishankar Shukla. University & Another. No. 24, wherein it is stated that in case a. student improves his division under provision of this para, the desh degrae will be issued aiter canceling the fast degree. Since the petitioner has not improved hie division, therefore, no result was declared. Though, on 09.03.2011, it was declared by the respondent-University that there was no improvement in division of the petitioner which is evident hem Annexure R/l. Thus, this petition is not maintainable. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the pleadings and documents appended thereto. This is an age oftransparency where there is no reason to conceal the marlps obtained by the petitioner in repeat examination which may or may not be relevant for improvement of the marks or the division of the candidate who has attempted to write repeat examination, as provided by the University itself. It appears that there is no improvement. in the division of the petitioner and as such, it was not. necessary to cancel his first degree and issue a. hesh degree. However, there is nothing wrong ifthe marks obtained by the petitioner in the repeat examination is supplied to the petitioner. In view of that, the respondent-University is directed to supply the marks obtained by the petitioner in the repeat examination held in March, 2010. The writ petition is partly allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. SATISH K. ANGNIHORI Judge Amit r...“ MW- ,.. Sd/— @