^ THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR CHHATTISGARH WRIT PETITION NO......^..?.^.....OF 2001. PETITIONER .-•- .^s:^ ""•^» MANJU WADHWANI. D/0 Shri Vidaypal Wadhwani. aged 21 years.R/OAdarsh colony, Bilaspur.(C.G). verses RESPONDENT \\^ ?< / i,/'\'^iV<<"i •stetP^A 1 .^/i~he state of chhattisgarh. through secretary Education department, Raipur(C.G.) 2. The registrar.Guru Ghasidas University, Bilaspur.(C.G.) 3. The Principal,D.P.Vipra P.G. College, BjJa^pur.(C.G) |WRIT PETITION UNDERARTICLE 226/227 OF THECONSTITUTION OF INDIA DETAILS OF THE PETITION / ./' ,x' snn9 £f7^ ^u fc.E.y ^^ sTS^l^fil RTWSil^! ';p3i''i;7!Teg ^ ••;;•• g»:i'i^lt2l "S^ 'Jy,t>M<'., ^lhTTO, p<"1l<i'i,< .V).SMs,.^^!.^f.. •-«;- 3IR?; •5'RBW ^fel 04.12.2001 -^fqt^T7^ f^^. ^ f^<t Tt^^R ^i SIRTq •3I'^'5I Heard Smt.Anju Ahuja lea^ned counsel for the petitioner. Heard also Shri Rajeev ^rivastava, leqmed Panel Lawyer for the re^)ondent No.l / State. None represents the reqior^dents No.2 dnd 3 todoy. This petition under Art-icle |226 of the Constitution of India has been fited <ss the petitioner is no-t| satisfied with revatuation result ouid she is still hopeful that if the pjapers are once again evaluated, she might get more marks. It is sta^ed after the revaluation, she got 23 more marks when compared wi1h the original mark sheet. It is contended by the leamedcounsel for the petitioner that there was a great difference of marks betiween the first valuation and the revaluation. It is submitted •tiiat if the papers are once again revaluated, the petitioner could ge^ more marks. ^u-' Shri Rajeev Shrivastava submits at,bar that once revaluation hos been done, it will not be peri^issible to keep on allowing fur-ther i valuation simply because -the studen-^ is not satisfied with the marks allotted in the revaluortion. ^" 3TI^C^I Wi* sn^v ^i^ •t-ifsd 311^1 M^'*( ^cit^q^r) 311^1 TOHWTliOT dase. In my view, in exerci^e Article 226 of the Constitutli issuing direction to rq/aluat^ particularly in the present done, it is not open fo the ^ti reyaluate. Such exercise i\^- . Constitution of India, in my justice. I hold thort there is revaluation. Accordingly, the petitior| +l'i|frl'lfl-f ^W<'ff Ti 'fet^ Tf^RZTT ^7 SlfitW 3II^?[ of extra-ordinary jurisdiction under on of India, this Court cannot keep on the answer scripts of students.-an<l !, since tHe revaluation was aii^S^ 4tudent to ask for further direction to ()f power under Article 226 of the ^iew will not be in the best interes.^f no further scope to issue direction for fajls and the same is dismissed. Sd/- ChiefJusticc (S. 12L-&V