BEFORE THE HIGH COURTOF^CHHATZISGARH AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) WRIT PETITION (C) N0. / 2011 V)?^ R^TO/I/ 1. Smt. Padma Sahara aged 29 years W/o Shri P.L.Sahara R/o Qr. No.15, Vivekanandnager, Durg (C.G) PETITIONER RESPONDENTS 1. VERSUS Vice Chancellor Pandit Ravishanker University, Raipur 2. •^ Sefetary R'glit^- fi'feTit Pandit Ravishanker University Raipur,(C.G) 3.'' Principal Kamladevi Womens Collge Rajnandgaon (C.G) WRITFETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1 ,>—-^ ^ fflGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR PETITIONER WRIT PETITION (C} No. 2270 of2011 Smt. Padma Sahara. RESPONDENTS VERSUS Vice Chancellor, Pt. Ravishanker University & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 QFTHE CQNSTITUT!ON_QFINDIA SB: Hon'Me Shri Satish K. Aenihotri. J. Present: Shri Anurag Jha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No.l&2. ORDER (Passed on 29* day ofSeptember, 2011) 1. By this petition, fhe petitioner seeks a direction to set aside the order/coimnunication dated 18.03.2011 (Annexure P/l) and to provide the marksheet offhe petitioner for the M.A. (Pshychology) final repeat examination held in March, 2010. 2. The brief facts, as projected by the petitioner are that the petitioner appeared in the M.A. (Psychology) examination in the year 2006 and for improvement of her division, she appeared in the repat examination (combined previous and final) in fhe year 2010. The result of the examination was declared but the marksheet was not supplied to the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner made a representation to the Govemor on 26.02.2011 and in response, it was intimated to the petitomer that under clause 10 of the Ordinance No. 13, the petitioner cannot be issued marksheet as there was no change in the division. Thus, this petition. 3. Leamed counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that there is no provision under Ordinance No. 13 that the petitioner shall not be supplied the marks obtained by her in the repeat examination. 4. On the other hand, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent- University relies on sub clause (vii) ofclause 10 ofthe Ordinance No. 13, wherein it is stated that in case a student improves his division under provision of this para, the ftesh degree will be issued after canceling the first degree. Since the petitioner has not improved her division, therefore, no result was declared. Thus, this petition is not maintainable. I 5. Heard leamed counsel appearing for the parties, pemsed the pleadings and documents appended thereto. 6. Tliis is an age of transparency where there is no reason to conceal the marks obtained by the petitioner in rqieat examination which may or may not be relevant for improvement of tfae marks or the division of fhe candidate who has attempted to write repeat examination, as provided by the University itself. 7. It appears that there was no improvement in the division of the petitioner and as such, it was not necessary to cancel her first degree and issue a fi"esh degree. However, there is nothing wrong ifthe marks obtained by the petitiorier in fhe repeat examination is suppUed to fhe petitioner. 8. In view offhat, the respondent-University is directed to supply fhe marks obtained by the petitioner in the repeat examination held in March, 2010. 9. The writ petition is partly allowed to the above extent. No order asto costs. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Amit