^ H!GH COURT OF CHHATTiSG^H AT BtLASPUR W. P.^CTNo. 4183 of 2007 Petitioner Seema Gambhir, D/o Shri B. S. Gambhir, age about : 27 yrs. Occupation : S&ident, R/o: Tikara- Para, Mannu Chowk, Bilaspur Versus Respondents 1. Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Through Registrar, Examinations}, Ralpur 2. Chhattisgarh Dental College & Research Institute, at Sundra, Through the Administrator, P.B.No.-25 Rajnandgaon (C.G.) 3. The Guru Ghasi Das University, Through Registrar (Exames), Bitaspur (C.G.) WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE. 14.226 OF THE COSTITUTION OF INDIA. 1950 B: Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocateforthe respondent No. 1. ORDER (Passed on this 21st day of August, 2007) With the consent ofthe parties, the matter is heard finally. 1. The petitioner is a student of B.D.S couree, studying in the Chhattisgarh Dental Cotlege & Research Instttute, Sundra, Rqnandgaon. She appeared in the annual examination 2006 for fina! year of B.D.S. course, the result thereofwas dectared in July, 2006. The petitioner v/as declared as failed in tsro subjects nameiy (i) Prosthodontics, Crown and Bridge, and (ii) Ora! Medicine Diagnosis and Radiology. Being dissatisfisd vnth ths declaration of resuit, the petiboner applied for revaluation. The petitioner was intimated by the respondent No.l/University that there was no variation in the results. Thereafter the petitioner appeared in the supplementary examination, 2007 in above two subjecte. In the ^p supplementary' examination ths petitioner cteared the subject Prosthodontics, Crown & Bridge but was deciared as failed in the subject of Ora! Medicine Diagnosis and Radioiogy. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has fi!ed this petition seeking relief, as under:- "7.1 That, ttse respondent no.1 may kindly be directed to produce the answer Shite reiating to the subject of Oral Medicine Diagnosis and Radiology of the pstitioner. 7.2 That, on the above facts and circumstances the papers of Orat Medicine Diagnosis and Radioiogy may kindty be directed to recheck, reassess or revalusd by independent Expert Examiner Committee of respondent no.3 and accordingly fie resulte of tti®petitioner may kindiy be directed to be modified by fte respondent no.1." 2. Shri Amiyakant Tiwari, Isarned counse! appearing for tt*>e petitioner submite that ths petitioner has dons the examination so we!! as she cannot be dectered as failed in the above subjsct. Thus, the respondent/University be directsd to recheck, reassess or revaiuate said paper by the independent expert examiner committee of ths respondent/Universifr/. 3. Shri Jitendra Pali, tearned counsel appearing for ttie respondent No.l/Univ'ersity submits that there is no provision for revaluation, rechscldng or reassessment of the answer shests under the University Ordinance No. 6 (26)(2) which specificaily states that a candidate who has appeared either in part of a supplementary examination in any of the subjects or papers as a backlog shal! not be eligible te apply for revaluation. 4. Learned counsel further relied on a decision of this Court in the matter of Sanjesv Kumar Sahu Vs. !ndira Gandhi Krishi Vishwavidyaiaya. Raipur {2006 L.T. (CG) 7}, v/herein the identicai facts were invotved, this Court observed as under:- M\ .it J3 fairly we!t settled by a catena of dscisions of the Supreme Court starting from ttie Judgment in the case of IVtaharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary' Education and another v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth ete. tiiat it is not the right of any student who appears for an examination eifter to seek re-totalling of the marks obtained by him or rsvaluation of the answer script untess the rules and regulations provide for it. The High Court is not an expert to assess the answer script in the subject of EMA-11 1 (Engineering Mathematics). The assessment of answer script in the subject of EMA-111 (Engineering Mathematics) is ver/ much within the domain ofthe expert in that discipline. The High Court by mereiy perusing the answer script wouid not be in a position to decide whsther the answer script is properiy assessed or not........." 5. ln the light of the above decision and otherwise also ttiere is no merrt in the case as se basis of the petitioner's relief is not supported by any material documente but on the basis of the seff same statsment that the petitioner has done ver/ we!! and it appeare that some portion of the answer sheet has not been examined by the sxaminer. S. In the result, the petition is dismissed. There shalt be no order asto coste. Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge Thakur