C-P l^o I 'y IN THE HTGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF CHHAmSGARH AT BILASPUR u,p^Nn (6fc^ /20io yWSI-E BENGH. PETITIOiiER:. ^ Kishore Kumar Rathore R/o Shri Saiyoo Rathore, Aged about 55 years, R/o Village Baloda (Kaser Para) Via Akaltara, Thasil 8& District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) VER^US RESPQNDENTS 1. 2.- .-••\^\^- ^^^ \\ 3. Guru Ghasidas University Through : Registrar Bilaspur District Bilaspur (C.G.) The Registrar, Guru Ghasidas University Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) The Deputy Registrar (Exam) Guru Ghasidas University, BilaspurDistrict Bilaspur (C.G.) Dy/Asst Registrar(Confidential) Guru Ghasidas University^ BUaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 9.26 OF THE CONSTJTTTTTON OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCR OF WRIT IN NATURP. "P MANDAMUS CERTT^ARY OR ANY OTHER WPTT OP' LIKE NATUREETa ^ ^. HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION fC) No. 1067 of2010 Kishore Kumar Rathore. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Guru Ghasidas University & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Aenihotri, J. Present: Shri Rajesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondents. O^RDJE^R (Passed on 27th day of July, 2010) The present petitlon seeks a direction to the respondents-University to revaluate the answer-sheet of the petitioner in respect of the paper wherein the petitioner could not acquire minimum passing marks. Thus, the question of law involved in this petition is asto whether afiter revaluation ofthe answer-sheet ofthe paper wherein the petitioner could not secure minimum qualifying marks, second revaluation may again be directed. The facts, in nutshell^ as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner was a regular student of Bachelor of Education course, in Government College ofEducation, Bilaspur. He appeared in the fmal examination held in the month of March-April, 2009. In the result, the petitioner was declared as Tail\ The petitioner obtained 26 marks out of90 in the subject-Teacher in Emerging Indian Society. Thereafiter, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer-sheet. In revaluation of answer-sheet, the petitioner found that there was no change in his result. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for a copy ofthe answer sheet of the said subject under the provisions ofRight to Information Act, 2005. The petitioner got the said answer sheet evaluated by one Dr. Siddharth Jain, Reader, D.P.Vipra Education College, Bilaspur in accordance with the memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/6) wherein he obtained 37 marks (Annexure P/4). On an application being made by the petitioner, in accordance with memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/6) the matter was referred to a Committee ofthree members wherein he was awarded 37 marks out of 90. Afiter third revaluation, the result ofthe petitioner was declared on 26.02.2010 (Annexure P/5). Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was found qualified in the valuation done by the Reader namely Dr. Siddharth Jain, who has awarded 37 out of90 marks The same ought to have been taken into consideration and the petitioner ought to have been declared as Tass9 in the aforestated subject. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the respondents- University would submit that in the aforesaid case, the respondent- University has acted in a fair, justified and legal manner. The petitioner, being the student ofBachelor ofEducation, appeared in the examination conducted for the academic year 2008-2009. The result was announced and the marks-sheet was issued wherein the petitioner was shown as failed in the aforesaid subject, as above. On being dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer sheets wherein he could not even secure minimum passing marks. Shri Shrivastava would further submit that Ordinance 5 of the University as fmalized in the 9th Meeting held on 05.03.2005 of the R? llllililBiii%l^i'il^li;i%^ ^^ ,^J.i^^ ^ '^ •^<^ University provides for the remedy of revaluation, if a student is dissatisfied with the marks awarded, on payment of certain fee. This rule clearly stipulates that in order to ensure impartiality and to deal with utmost fairness, the answer sheets of the students, who are aggrieved by the evaluation., may apply to the University alongwifh the prescribed fee and on recelvmg ofsuch application^ their answer sheets would be sent to expert valuers outside the University. Accordingly., his answer sheet was sent to two independent valuers. The answer sheet was examined by the valuers and they had submitted the revalued answer sheet and a report showing question wise marks obtained by the petitioners. 5. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. As per the procedure stipulated in Ordinance 5, ifthe marks awarded by even by one ofthe independent valuers exoeeds or reduces the marks obtained by the student, by a margin of 10% of the total number of marks, obtained earlier^ in that case the Uniyersity would proceed with the next step. The Universlty, after having noticed some change in the marks granted by the independent valuers, on the application of the petitioners, referred all the answer sheets to the Committee of three experts and the marks awarded by the Committee was taken into consideration. On the marks granted by the Committee, the resulf remained unchanged as there was no variation by reducing or enhancing the marks by a margin of 10 % ofthe marks obtained by the petitioners in the first valuation. l^ ^^s^^ !i<.;:.''ri.,'' ~^v^,. •;.,,.^ T^. <. "~^^ 9. 10. In no case, the petitioners have obtained minimum qualifying marks by the Committee except the valuation done by the Dr. Siddharth Jain.at the instance of the petitioners, privately. The same cannot be held as final. The memo dated 28.03.2007 (Annexure P/6) which was adopted and followed by the University to have transparency and faimess in the valuation after change of marks by the independent valuers on revaluation, the fmal answer sheets were referred to the Committee of experts and the marks awarded by them were taken into consideration. Thus^ there was no change found. Thus., the answer sheets of the concerned subjects wherein the petitioners have not obtained qualifying marks have been subjected to revaluation three times. The first original valuation, thereafiter revaluation by two independent valuers and third by a committee of experts and as such, the relief sought for by the petitioners to direct a fresh valuation ofthe answer sheets again, cannot be granted. So far as action against respondent-University is concerned, there is no reason to pass any order of this nature as the respondent-University has followed all the procedures and has got the answer sheets examined by the experts. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is berefit ofmerit and is accordingly dismissed. There shall be no order asto costs. Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge Ashok ._J