r-r / 2. Sumit Kumar Soni S/o Shri Ambika Prasad Soni, Aged about 31 years, ' Attendant-cum-Techniclan in B.S.P., 'Bhilai, Residing at : in front of Andhra Schooi, Camp No.1, Vrinda Nagar, BHiLAI Distrlct : Durg (C.G.) .490001 Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, Raipur," Through : The Vice- Chancellor, Pt. Ravi ShankarShukla University, RA!PUR fC.G.) - 492 001 The Registrar (Confidential), Pt. Ravi Shankar Shukla University, RAIPUR (C.G.) - 492 001 T'ne Head of the Department, School of Studies, Department of Law, Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, RAIPUR (C.G.) - 492' Present: Shrl B.P. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant. J U DG M EISiT ith The following judgment of the Court was passed Shri B.P. Rao, learned counsei for the appellsnt is heard on admission. 2. Appellant - Sumit Kumar Sonj, has filed this writ appeai against the order dated 25-02-2008, passed in W.P. (C) ^ ^ 1 i I'a/^uus. 3. Appellant / petitioner - Sumit Kumar Soni fiied the writ petition seeking a directiori ,,to respondent No.4 to take fresh Viva-Voce examinati the duly constituted Board of Examiners as ser the Statute. 4. Appellant - Sumit'-Kumar Soni appeared in LLM Part li examination in the year 2007. As per the syllabus for the LLM in Viva-Voce examinatioR on 1 8-05-2007. course, ne His result was declared on 01-06-2007 and he obtalned 67 marks out of 100 marks in Viva-voee examination. The petitioner's entire ctaim in the writ petltion was founded 5. on two grounds, namely, (i) that the Board for Viva-Voce examination vi/as not properly constituted as there was only one external examiner, whereas the Statute requirsd that there should be two external examiners; (ii) in th? Viva-Voce examination the questions were asked about the &nstitu{iona! law, whereas the petitioner in LLM Part-11 had opted for the subject group of 'Torts and Crime'. 6. Learned Single Judge on a thorough consideration of the submissions of learned counsel for the petitioner in the context of para 17(1) of Statute 29 applicable t6 Pt. Ravishankar Shukla II- University, did not find any substance sn any of the above- mentioned submlssions and, therefore, passed the impugned order dated 25-02-2008 whereby the appellant's writ petition was dismissed. ^ 7. Shri B.P. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that thg learned Single Judge has erred in not iiving due weight to the submjssions advanced on behalf of the petitioner and dismissing the writ petition. 8. During the course of hearing the learried counsel for the appellant produced the syilabus for LLM Examination for our perusal. The said syllabus prescribes following Scheme oi ixamin.ation for LLM : "SCHEMES OF THE EXAMINATION 1 (a) Every candidates appearing for LL.M. Part-1, First Semester shall be examined in the following two papers of 100 marks each. Paper-1 - Legal and Constitutional History of India. Paper-2 - Constitutionat Law of India. (b) Every candidate appearing for LL.iVi Part-1 Second Semester examination sha!! be exarnined in the following two papers. Paper -1 - Jurisprudence and legai Theory Paper - 2 - Lagislation Principles, Methods and interpretation. Every candidates appearing for LL.M Semester Examination shal! be exam foliowing papers of 100 marks each. -II, First inthe .,t^?s^?"-?^^ '•;ssfci., l^- /',f's":3% ^ i 1 and Paper11 of any of the group in subpara (f) of this paragraph. (d) Every candidate appearing for LL.M. Part il, Second Semester examination shall be Examined in the foilowing papers each comprising of 100 marks. IV of the same group which was First Semester of LL.M. Part i! p !1 ar offered in Examination. Provided that the Head of Department of Law in the College or in the Teachlng Department of the University if he is satisfied about the ability of|a regular student , in view of-his/her performance at earlier semester permit the student to offer dissertion in lieu of on of the papers prescribed for the Semester examination. (e) In addition to the written examination as prescribed in the preceding sub-para every candidate appearing for the LL.M. Part-1!, Second Semester Examination shall also appear for a Viva Voce Examination, 100 marks. This wili be heid before a Board of three examiners of whom two wili be external and One Internal. The absence of the External Examiner may, however, be condoned by the KuSpati, if it is caused due to unavoidable circumstances, Ordinarity the Head of Department of law vflli be the internal examtner. (f) The foilowing are the Groups of papers, any one of which shall be offered by the appearing for LL.M. Part-11, i, viz." .-^.- 1 •<^ . .* ..^•-^ s ^xs ''^•^ia^ 9. From the above quoted scheme of the examination it is apparent that during the entire course of LLM Part-1 and Part-11, there is only one Viva-Voce examination to be conducted in the Second Semester of LLM Part-II examination. It is, therefore, obvious that the Viva-Voce examinatiorf would cover ail the subjects of LLM Part-1 and il. In this view ofthe matter, we do not find any substance in the submissions of the learned counsel for the gppeilant that in the Viva-Voce examination, the appeliant ought to have been asked questions only about 'Torts and Crime' and not about 'Constitutional Law'. 10. So far as the appeilant's other suhmission is concemed, that the Board for Viva-Voce examination was not properly constituted inasmuch as oniy one external examiner was included jn fhe Board as against the requirement under Clause 17(1) of the Statute 29; it is suffice to say that in the syllabus fpr the LLM it is categorically prescribed that the absence of one external examiner may, however, be condoned by the Kulpati, if it is caused due to unavoidabte ciroumstances. 11. That apart, the petitioner having appeared and participated in the Viva-Voce examination and taken a chance, cannot be permitted to turn-round and challenge the constitution of the Board of Viva-Voce examination after declaration of his result. 12. For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any infirmity in the impugned order which may warrant interference in this writ appeai. ./is^y^:. f^ss^i 1 ""' -sgl S t. ••''2. subbi 13. The writ appeal, therefore, is liable to be dlsmissed and hereby dismissed summarily. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- SunilKumarSinha " Judge