^^^>- ^K^^r'^ c 0i£MI'/:W BI:N^r6 & IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W.P.(c) N0. Ig^ OF 2010 PETITIONER ^' /I^u^..^•' -^ .'o; ^^ ^ '^*' ^^ ^•' ^'^^VA.; ^^"y ^^•"" ^- VERSUS RESPONDENTS 1. ^" Ankit Agrawal, S/o Shri Prakash Chand Agrawal, aged about 21 years, Student of Bachelor of Erigineering at Yugantar Institute of Technology and Management, Rajnandgaon (C.G.), Affiliated to Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG) Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, Bhilai, North Park Avenue, Sector-8, Bhilai, Distt. Durg (CG) Yugantar Institute of Technology and Management, Rajnandgeon, Village - Tekva, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) through its Registrar. Examinatipn Controller, Yugantar Institute of Technology and Management, Rajnandgaon, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA 2. 3. ;IT"'" HIGH COURT OF CHHATTlSGARhL^jLASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) N0.1829 OF 2010 PETITIONER Ankit Agrawal Versus RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University & Others M Post for pronouncement of the order on ^?7 day of August, 2010 Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotri Judge ^\ •y / \..^e/ '••:^r^^" dlGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR WRITPETITIONfONO.1829 OF 2010 PETITIONER AnkitAgrawat Versus RESPONDENTS Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University & Others (Writ petitions underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J; Present:- Shri Abhishek Sinha, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate for the respondents. O R D E R (Delivered on this J?7yday ofAugust, 2010) 1. By this petition, the petitioner prays for issuance of writ of mandamus directing the respondent authorities to revaluate the answer script of the petitioner of Appiied Mathematics-11 in accordance with the University Ordinance for Examination No.6 and Ordinancefor B.E. fouryears' Degree Course No.14. 2. The facts, in brief, as projected by the petitioner, for disposal of this petition, are that the petitioner is a regular student of B.E. (Computer Science) four years' Degree Course in respondent No.2 college, which is affiliated with respondent No.1 University. According to the petitioner, he had backlog oftwo papers of second semester i.e. Applied Mathematics-il and Basic Electrical Engineering. In order to cle^r the backlog, the petitioner applied and participated in the second semester examination. The result was declared on 27/03/2010, in which the petitioner was declared as "pass" in Basic Electrical Engineering, but in the paper of Applied Mathematics-11, he was found faiteed. .^'^^, ^y% j •^x^/ 6r 6. 7. Being aggrieved, the petitioner applied for revaluation of his answer sheet on 12/4/2010. The respondents denied his request for revaluation in spite of the fact that there is a clear statutory provision for revaluation. The petitioner also moved an application before the Examination Controller as well as the Registrar for revaluation, but nothing hashappened. Thus, this petition. Shri Sinha, iearned counsel appearing for the petitioner, would submit that the action of the respondents in not revaluating the answer sheet of the petitioner is illegal, arbitrary and against the Ordinance of the University. Shri Sinha would further submit that the case of the petitioner is governed under the provisions of Ordinance No.14 i.e. Ordinance for B.E. four years' Degree Course, not Ordinance No.6. The impugned action of the respondents has resulted in grave injustice and harm to the petitioner's career. On the other hand, Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, would submit that Ordinance No.6 (Annexure R/1) came into force for examination (General). The case of the petitioner is covered by clause 18 of the Ordinance No.6. There is no provision for revaluation of the answer books for backlog papers under Qrdinance No.6. Thus, the prayer of the petitioner was rejected. 1 haveheard learned counsel forthe parties, perused the pleadings and the documents appended thereto. On perusal of Ordinance No.14, which was made specifically for B.E. 4 years Degree course, it is found that clause 12.2 of the Ordinance No.14 provides for making an application in the ^ prescribed form along with the requisite fee within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result. Further, the revaluation of answer scripts for any.one or two theory subjects was permissible. 8. Clause 12.2 ofthe OrdinanceNo.14 reads as under: 12.2 REVALUATION : 12.2.1 The candidates may apply to the Controller of Examination of the University for revaluation of his/her answer scripts for any one or two theory subjects. 12.2.2 Such application must be made on the prescribed form along with the requisite fee within 15 days from the date of declaration of the result to the respective Principals of the Institution in which candidate is studying. 12.2.31f on revaluation a mistake in the result originally published is detected, necessary correction shall be notified by the University. In all other cases, the result shall be communicated to the candidate, as soon as possible through the respective institute. 9. Ordinance No.6 is the Ordinance for examination (General). Ctause 18 ofthe Ordinance No.6 reads as under: 18. A regular candidate may apply to the Registrar for revaluation of his/her answer books in the prescribed form within 10 days from the declaration of the result of the regular examination. The revaluation of the answer book will not be applicable forback log papers. Provided that no candidate shall be allowed to avail the facility of revaluation in more than two papers. Provided also that no revaluation shall be allowed in case of scripts of practicals, field work, sessional work tests and thesis submitted in lieu ofpaper at the examination. Process of revaluation will be common for all courses. ^'y ^ "^ .. ^' .- ^ 10. There is no dispute that the Qrdinance No.6 obtained approval of the Chancellor on 07/04/2010. Admittedly, result was declared on 27/03/2010 and the application for revaluation was made by the petitioner on 12/04/2010. The Ordinance comes into force only after approval of the Chanceltor under the provisions of the Chhattisgarh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973. 11. The question arises for consideration, in the case on hand, is whether or not Ordinance No.6 Supersedes the provisions of revaluation contained in the Ordinance No.14 i.e. Ordinance for B.E. 4 years Degree course. The petitioner was pursuing B.E. (Computer Science) four years' Degree course in the respondent No.2 college. Ordinance No.14 specially provides for B.E. 4 years Degree course. Subsequent Ordinance No.6 clearly states Ordinance for examination (General). In any clause of the Ordinance No.6 it is nowhere provided that the revaluation as provided in Ordinance No.14 stands superseded or repealed or modified under clause 18 of Ordinance No.6. 12. It is an.accepted principle of law that general law yields to a special taw. Ordinance No.14 is a special law and Ordinance No.6 is a generai law. Thus, Ordinance No.6 yields to Ordinance No.14, as the same was for B.E. 4 years Degree Course. (See West Bengal Electricity Regulatory Commission v. CESC Ltd.1, Ghaziabad Zila Sahkari Bank Ltd. v. Addl. Labour Commissioner & Others2 and 1 (2002)8SCC715 2 (2007) 11 SCC 756 KSL And Industries Limited v. Arihant Threads Limited And Others3). 13. Thus, the contention of Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondents, that the subsequent Ordinance No.6 supersedes earlier Ordinance No.14 with regard to revaluation of answer scripts is rejected, as there is no provision indicating the intention or otherwise to supersede or repeal or override the special Ordinance No.14 dealing with B.E. 4 years Degree course. Thus, Ordinance No.14^being a speciat taw^woutd be applicable to the facts of the case on hand. 14. In view of foregoing, the application of the petitioner for revaluation of the answer script of the petitioner of Applied Mathematics-11 shall be dealt with in accordance with Ordinance No.14, to the extent it is provided in the said Ordinance. 15. In the result, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. 16. There shall be no order asto costs. Gowri Sd/- SatishK.Agnihotn Judge (2008) 9 SCC 763