^^ IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR W. P. No. -^^^/2003^ ^ PETITIONER : .^ ^•:.^s ^.l^ ,c^ ^^ ^ ....* RESPONDENTS ^^ ^^^a^s. ^..^^^ .€ /i.L^^^ 1 v'-^^ \^\\^.^'^ •'''-.-~:^-^ "/y '"// Arun Singh S/0 Shri Ram Bihari Singh aged about 23 years, R/0 Hanuman Nagar, Durg, Dist. Durg (C.G.) VERSUS 1. State of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary, Higher Education Department D.K.S.Bhawan, Raipur (C.G.) 2. Principal, Govt,V.Y.T.P.G (Vishwanath Yadav Tamaskar Post Graduate) Autonomous College Durg, Dist. Durg (C.G.) 3. Pt Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur,,^. :rar Dist.Raipur Chhattisgarh WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF CONSTITUTION OF INDZA HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRITPETITIQN N0,2524 OF 2003 Arun Singh Versus State of Chhattisgarh & Others (Writ Petition underArticle 226 ofthe Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. F)resent:- Ms. Meena Shastri, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A.V. Sridhar, Panel Lawyer for the State. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 3rd day ofAugust, 2010) 1. Heardlearned counsel appearing for the parties. 2. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to add additional bonus 50 marks in the paper of Statistical Analysis of the petitioner being roll No.61370 in the M.Com. final examination 2003 and to issue revised marks-sheet. Further, he seeks a direction to the respondent No.2 to send the answer sheets of the petitioner relating to subjects Managerial Economics and Financial Management for revaluation to other college. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner appeared in M.Com final year examination 2003. According to the petitioner, in the question paper of Statistical Analysis, the questions carrying 50 marks were out of syllabus, as a result ofwhich the petitioner got only 21 marks. Being aggrieved, the petitioner as well as other students made a complaint before the Principal of the respondent college, but no action has been taken on the said complaint. Even the valuation of answer sheets of other subjects has also not been done properly, for which the petitioner made an application for revaluation of his answer sheets relating to two subjects i.e. Managerial Economics and Financial y^""^,.\ '( <c-iP'-i|| 'K^/ '^"v^-^ 6. Gowri Management and requested the respondent college for revaluation of the same from other college authorities. On the said application also no action has been taken. The act of the respondent college is illegal, arbitrary and violates the fundamental rights of the petitioner. Thus,this petition. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State submits that in view of thecomplaint made by the students, a grievance committee was constituted and after due enquiry, the committee found that the allegations made by the students are baseless and no question was out of syllabus. As far the revaluation of the answer sheets of the petitioner is concerned, as per rules the revaluation work has been done by the subject experts and there was no change in the marks of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner is notentitled to any relief. It is evident that after receipt of the complaint the respondent college authorities constituted a grievance committee and on due enquiry it was found that no question was out of syllabus. Even otherwise, there is no provision for grant of bonus marks in such a huge number i.e. 50 marks. During the revaluation of the answer sheets also the petitioners has not obtained more marks. The petitioner has failed to prove his case. Thus, in view ofthe above, I do not find anyjustification to entertain this petition. It is accordingly dismissed. No order asto costs. •-^, - Sd/- Satish K. Agiuhotri Judge (^)