OF \E’Q/ éj 3§3§§€§LE BENCH IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR C.G. WRIT PETITIQm'cmo. M 2—2 /2o11 PETITIONER w’ Koushik Mondal S/o Sri Nilkanta Mondal Aged—about 24 years, R/o C/o shushil Arora, shivaji Marg, Tikarapara, Bilaspur [C.G.] VERSUS /" 1.Gurughasi Das University Through— Registrar, Ratanpur Road, Koni, Bilaspur [C.G..] ( 2. D.P.Vipra College, Normal school Road, Bilaspur [C.G.] WRITN PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA FOR ISSUANCE OF APPROPRIATE M WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTIONS “MM“ m L7 tHQH COURT OF CHHATHSGARH AT BILASPUR‘ WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1423 of 2011 PETITIONER Koushik MondaQ VERSUS Gurughasi Das University & Another WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri DR. Patei, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Ashish Shrivasiava, Advocate for the respondent No.1. RESPONDENTS OBPERJORAL) (Passed on 11‘“ day of May, 201 1) Heard learned counsel for the partiess By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent authorities to evaluate the marks of Electrodynamics, Plasma Physio; & Stadstical Mechanics, M.Sc. Physics (Pre) subject and declare the petitioner as a pass candidate. The petitioner also sought a direction to the respondent authorities to allow the petitioner in M.Sc.‘Physios Final year examination and declare his resuit of the final year examination: 3. Shri Patel. learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner appeared in the examination of subject of Electrodynamics, Plasma Physics & Statistical Mechanics and obtained 54 marks in the said subject,‘as is evident from marksheet Annexure P/l. Thereafwr, *the petitioner applied for revaluation of the above mentioned sublect and after revaluation, the marks of the petitioner were reduced to 32 from 54 and declared him as fail candidate. Again, the petitioner moved an application for revaluation vide notification dated 14-2-2011 (Annexure P/3). The marks of the petitioner has been declared as 30 in the subject of Electrodynamics, plasma physics& Statistical mechanics. Learned counsel further submits that due to aforesaid inaction on the part of the respondent authorities, the entire career of the petitioner has been ruined. In view of the aforesaid action, the petitioner has not been ailowed to participate in the M.Sc. (Physics) final year examination. Thus, this petition. On the other hand, Shri Shrivastava, leamed counsel appearing for the respondent No.1lUniversity, submits that in the aforesaid case, the respondent University has acted in a fair, transparent and legal manner. On making an application by the petitioner for revaluation, the answer sheets were examined by the vaiuars and they had submitted revalu'ed answer sheets. He further submits that third time atso the petitioner moved an application for revaluation on 22-12-2010, but the said'fact has been suppressed by the petitioner, therefore, the‘petitioner is not entitled to any relief. 5. The answer sheet of the concemed subject wherein the petitioner has , not obtained qualifying marks has been subjected to revaluation threeT times. The first original valuation, thereafter -revaluation by .two independent valuers and third by a committee of expats and, as such, the relief sought for the petitioner to direct afresh valuation of the answer sheet again fourth time, cannot be granted. So far as, action against respondent/University is conoemed, there is no reason to pass any order of this nature as the respondent/University has followed aii the ‘ procedures and has got the answer sheeb examined by the experts. 6. The Supreme Court, in Himachel Pradesh Public'Sem'oe Commission v. Mukesh ThakurendAnotmr’, observedas under:- “26. Thus, the- law on the subject ' emerges to the effect that in the absence of any provision under the statute or statutory rules/regulations. the - r Court should not generally direct . revaluation" 7. For the reasons stated hereinabove, the writ petition is bereft of merits , and is accordingly dismissed. — 6. There shall be no order asto costs. Sdl- Satish K. Agnihotri Judge 1 (201 0) 6 SOC 759 '