IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 8693 of 2011. Decided on: October 10, 2011. Vandana Verma Vrs. H.P. University & anr. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Karol, Judge. For the petitioner: Mr. Inder Dutt, Advocate, vice counsel. For the Respondents: Mr. B.C.Negi, Advocate. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayers: “i) that the respondents may be directed to correct the result of the petitioner and issue the revised result sheet within one week so as to enable the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination scheduled to be held in the month of October, 2011. ii) that in case the last date for submitting the application forms for supplementary examination is over in that event the respondents be directed to entertain the application of the petitioner without late fee and allow the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination.” 2. According to the petitioner, there has been a bonafide mistake on the part of the College in forwarding her marks to the University. Annexure P-2, is the letter by the Principal to the Controller of Examinations. To the extent relevant, the same is extracted below: “1. She got 18 marks in internal assessment in the subject of Business Economics and she has been awarded 08 marks. 2. She has attended 86% classes during the session 2010-11 in the subject of Financial Accounting. She should have been given 4 marks instead of 3.” 3. Thus, it is fairly clear that there was a mistake on the part of the College in forwarding her marks in respect of Business Economics and Financial Accounting. In place of 8 and 3, it should have been 18 and 4. There is no 2 dispute that the internal assessment is made by the College only. Now, that the College has admitted that there has been a bonafide mistake and that the same should be corrected, the petitioner prays that direction may be issued to the University to effect the correction accordingly. 4. Mr. B.C.Negi, learned standing counsel appearing for the University, submits that going by the Circular dated 22.7.2009, issued by the Controller of Examinations, which is taken on record, corrections are permissible only in the case of internal assessment where either the candidate is awarded ‘zero’ or is shown as ‘absent’. 5. We have perused the Circular. The purpose of the Circular is to minimize unnecessary litigation and hardship to the students. If that be so, justice shall not be denied to the candidate on the technical ground that the revision of internal assessment is only in those two eventualities. Infact, it is not a case of revision, it is a correction of mistake, inadvertently made by the College. Therefore, the Circular dated 22.7.2009 shall not stand in the way of the internal assessment of the petitioner in the two subjects, referred to above, being properly counted in terms of the assessment actually made by the College. 6. Therefore, this Writ Petition is disposed of directing the second respondent to make appropriate entry by way of correction in terms of Annexure P-2, letter by the College to the Controller of Examinations. The needful shall be done within a period of two weeks from the date of production of the copy of this judgment by the petitioner before the second respondent. Copy Dasti. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice. October 10, 2011. ( Justice Sanjay Karol), (karan/vs) Judge.