* ‘\\$ q '. ROCASARHABSPUR W. P. gC) No. ‘3 of 2007 Petitioner Versus Respondents 1. SB: Hcn'ble Mr. Just§ce Sa:ish K. Agnihom, J Ku. Anubhuti Gupta. Dlo Ashok Kumar Gupta, Aged‘ about 2O years. Rio 306‘ Vinayak Nagan Raipur, Tahsii & District Raipur (C.G.) smte of Chhattisgarh, Through — Secretary, Higher Education Ministry, Secretariat. D.K.5. Bhavan, Raipur Pt. Ravishankar Vishwa Vidyaiaya- Raipur, Through: Registrar, Raipur Distt. — Raipur (C.G.) Vice Chancellor. Pt. Ravishankar Vishwa Vidyaiaya, Raipur, Disit — Raipur (C.G.) Principal, Raipur institute 0f Technoiogy, Disfr - Raipur (C.G.) Shri Y. C. Shanna. Advocate with Shri Thakur Anand Mohan Singh. dvecare far the petitiener. Shri Utkarsh Verma. Govt. Advocate for the reepondent No. 1. Shri Kanak Tiwari, Senior Adva'cate with Shri Jitendra Pali, Advocate for the respondents No. 2 and 3. Shri Sachin Singh Rajput. Advocate for the respondent No.4. 1. The petitioner is pursuing her BE. examination course in information Teohnoiogy, in Raipur institute of Technology, Raipur. aftiiiated Ioy the respondent No.2 University. The petitioner appeared in Vi Semester examination theid’in May, 2006, conducted by the respondent No.2 University. The petitioner was deciared as unquaiified in the result dated 25.1 1 .2006. 2. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has obtained 18 sessionai marks 'in the practical Ari l { i O R D E R a (Passed on this 29m day of March, 2007) \\ examinathnkcf the subiect - lntroductian‘to JaVa Programming !T' 6G6. The re5pondent NeA Couege by communication (Annexure 2) entaed the se$sional marks as ‘8‘, instead of ‘18‘ abtained by the petitioner in the column, of the mafks obtained ir. the pfacticak examinafion’ of the subject. The Universéty‘ on the basés of ‘6’ marks chained by the petitioner in the said examination, found the petitioner as imquaiii‘red. . VThe respendeht No.4ICoiiege‘ thereafter‘ vide communication dated 112.20% (Annexure RI3), addressed to the Deputy Registrar {ComientiaiIExamJPL Raviehankar Shukia University‘ Raipur. submitted that by mistake the practical marks of the petitioner was erroneously entered by the teaoher concerned as ‘8‘. in fact‘ the marks actuaiiyawatded to the petitioner was ‘18‘ in the practioai examination of the subieot — introduction to Java Programming iT- 606. . The facts in regard to the grant of ‘18' marks to the petitioner in the above subiect is not in dispute. The cottage/respondent No.4 admits the ciericai mistake crept in the document (Annexure RI2). showing Sessionai Marks in Theory Subjects & Practicais for the session Jan-Juiygoos. ’ . Shri Kanak Tiwari. teamed $enior Advocate appearing for the respondents No. 2 and 3 with Shri Jitendra Pali. Advocate, though does not dispute the marks awarded to the petitioner. submits that the respondent ‘ No.4rcoiiege was informed vide ietter dated 912.20% (Annexure R2311} to appear in the office of the Vice Chancellor on 12.12.2006 at 2.00 pm. along with all concerned records. despite that the respondent No.4 has not done the needful. . Be that as it may. it is admitted position that the petitioner was awarded ’18’ marks in the practical examination of the subiect 5 in i l l mtroduction to Java Programming. on that basis the resuit of Vi semester may be different than the reauit deciared on 25.1 1 .2006. . Accordingiy‘ the petition is allowed. The respondent No. 2 i3 ' directed to publish the resutt of the petitioner after taking into consideration of ‘1 8’ marks obtained by the petitioner in the practical examination of the subiect — introduction to Java Programming. within a period of 10, days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. . The petitioner is entitled to all consequential benehts tiowing from this order. No order as to cosw. " Sd/- Satish K. Agnihotlii Judge Thekur f