HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR DIVISION BENC CORAM: ‘ ‘HON’BLE SHRI RAJE V GUPTA, CJ. HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL} KUMAR SINHA, J. WRIT APPEAL No.59 ‘df 2010 APPELLANT (Petitioner) Ku. Sonal Ja'iswal, D/o Shri RP. Jaiswal, agedéabout '20 years, R/o Quarter No.1-A, Street-21‘ Sector-2, Bhilai, District Durg (0.6. VERSUS Chhattisgarh ;Swami, Vivekanan Technical UniVersity; Through Its Reistr, Bhila, istrict Dur (C.G) WRIT APPEAL UNDER SECTION 2 OF THE CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT (APPEAL TO DIVISION BENCH) ACT, 2006 RESPONDENT ent: hrMPS hatiaunseifote appellant. f ’ Mch 210 ATht e Ho’b High our may kid be pleaed ”.a th nle Ct nly s to he en o t as lng he call"t tire records f he ce incudi t answer t nc the laion charts o a the H ) d gar i D g .' Pres Si B,corh Judgment {22“ ar, 0) The fg jmn f h Q w sd by oiiowin udget o te ourt as pase R Guta, CJ ajeev p . Sri MPS Bhai, ared us for he allant i har h ta len conel t ppe s ed on min. adssio 2 ppella itnr um. Sol aiw has filed thi i ) 2 Ant f petioe K na Jsal s wrt“ ape gain h gnd od dt 12.20 se pal ast te impue rer aed 07.09, pasd in W(C P) N532200 o.9/9 and ode rr daed t 281.0 .0201, pas sed in \ Rew Petition o1/9. vie N.9200 ) i The ion iiledhe pn ort fwnliefs2 3 petiter t writetitio fhe olloigre‘ shee ‘al vaut f ll xmin/reexami f kid pl m the s eaer—ner or its n erusa end of justi. ‘ . ha, h Hon’ble High Crt ay be kin ehough t is a , ore o ir n t naur o o sue writ dr r dection i he te f Madms dirg e snt o Re revaiue the sic lericl Egineering pp o Semtr o he Pener bv nnde ane in th eds o Justice C Tt the on b High out ma be kid enough ha H ie Cr y n su w r the natur f Maus ren te Reonn t supy he valued rox of te sulenta xam h Bic ectricl Eing p S Peon d uan chts l h xaminer/r-xaminer, te d ofustice. _ D Tha; the ’be ig Court be kin u to is , r dirtio n the tur Manm dectn the Resdents llo t Pterto ear e m of 6 ster as bkg i ts d pa e revo and o gt admin 7th Seeer n teeds ustic . E. That the Hon’bie High Court may kindly be pteased to award the cost of the petition and any other alternative additional writ in favour of the petitioner in the ends of justice " nau ectin th Reponde t i Ba Ecta n aer f 2’” ese f t titio y idepent exmir e n f to ise a rit order o direction in e o andm dictig h spdet o pl t Xe Copy h ppmery e of te as Ela ngeerin aper of 2"“ emester of the titier an the valtio ar of al te ee‘e in h ens j _ t Honl Hh may d enogh sue a writ orde or ecn i nae of daus irig pon to aw he eition app in th exa '“ Seme aclo f she eclared ss in th re—aluatin t e ssio in mst i h'n of je. 4) The petitioner who was a reoular student of BE Course was declared fail in the BaSIc Electrical Engineering of second emester. In WF?(C) No.2081f2009 vide’ order dated 09 07 2009 respondent / Universrty was directed to re valuate the petitioners answer/sheet of the above subject After re valuation of the Basrc - >. lectrical Engineerina answer sheet result was declared and the i ce B Tt te oL m d s E (’~a J x .7 petitioner was informed abqut ‘no change,“ in the marks obtained by her. The petitioner, thereafter appiiesd for photocopy of the revvaiueoi answer sheet 'of Basic Electrical Engineering paper for i the purposes of making further application for re-revaluation. The respondent/University vide order dated 09.09.2009 (Annexure P/l) refused tosupply photocopy of the re—valued answer sheet, mainly on the ground that the order of thei High Court directing for re-valuation of the petitioner’s answer sheet did not further direct for supply of photocopy of the re-valued answer sheet to the petitioner. 5) The learned Single Judge, on a thorough consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner and the relevant provisions of Ordinance No.5 and the Notification dated 05.07.2008, dismissed the appellant’s writ petition in the following terms: ”8. .From perusal of the marks awarded to the petitioners after revaluation and comparing it with the original marks obtained by thepetitioner in the supplementary examination, the communication of result of “no change” by the respondent uniVersity isstrictly in accordance with Rule 22 of the Ordinance No.5. 8 9. Annexure P—4 is the‘notification dated 05.07.200 issued by the University for re-revaluation of the’answer books. The aforesaid notification has been issued wit reference to implementation of the decision of 12*“ meeting of the Co—ordination Committee of Universities. From perusal of the aforesaid notification it is clear that f the candidates of main examination, who desire to apply nfor, re—revaluation of their respective answer books are required to first obtain photocopy of the answer book h and for that purpose they haveito apply on prescribed application form along with the fe'e of Rs.500/- within ten days from the date of declaration of revaluation result. After going through the Xerox copy of the answer book, the candidate can apply for re—revaluatlon by paying the prescribed fee of Rs.600i— within 15 days from the date of declaration of revaluation result. Thus, re-revaluation is permissible only with respectito answer books of the main examination and it has no application whatsoever to the answer books of the Supplementary examination. 10. On the basi's- of aforesaid analysis, the decision of the respondent university in refusing the request of the .ipetitioner to re-revaluate, the answer book of Basic Electrical Engineering paper of second semester supplementary examination is in accordance with the notification of Annexure P-4 dated 05.07.2008, Rulesi Regulation and Ordinances a of the respondent —University and no relief, as prayed for in the writ petition, can be granted to the petitioner.” l 6) hri MPS Bhatia, learned coTi‘nsel for the appellant S vehemently argued that, the learned Single Judge has erred in ‘ holding that the Notification dated 05.07.2008 providing for re-revaluation of the answer sheet is not applicable to the petitioner's answer sheet as it related to supplementary examination. 7) a On a bare perusal of the Notification dated 05.07.2008, it becomes clear that, ‘re—revaluation was provided only for the candidates of main examination. As such, the appellant, who admittedly appeared in the supplementary examination and was r- ‘seeking re-revaluation of her answer sheet of the supplementary ‘ $ examination cannot claim re-revaluation: of her answer sheet under ‘ the provisions of Notification dated 05 07.2008. Since, no‘other provision of law was pointed out by thetappeiiant’s’ counsel, which 5 may permit/provide re-revaiuation of the appellant’s answer sheet : of the supplementary examination, we ‘do not find any infirmity in the impugned order whereby,-the learned Single Judge has dismissed the appellant’s writ petition. 8) The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dismissedsand is Iv hereby dismissed summarily. F“ sw- WA Sd/- _ . l l Chief Justice subbu ,,