. \ ^.^•^^- ^\fc^^1^-'"^ £;-^«1-1°" SWGLE 8EMCH TJ 3>Q02^ tudent ofB.E. 2' Chowk, Mungei Chhattisgarh. •ear, (ET & T ;Ti y Engineering College, p: s^®S ^3^&S^i:^®^^^^^^N~1 •%.. KJ^'-I'.'?" ~'i u m^ S»8 mGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION fC) No. 3002 of2010 PETITIONER RESPONDENTS Ku. Neetu Diwakar. VERSUS Registrar, Swami Vivekanand'Technical University, Bhilai & Others. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon'bleShri Satish K. Asnihotri, J. Present: Shri H.S.Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S.Thakur, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri Pankaj Shrivastava, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. ORDER(ORAL) (Passed on 01st day of October, 2010) By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent No. 1 to correct the T.A. (Sessional Marks) and to declare the result ofthe petitioner and further, to direct the respondents to give provisional admission to the petitioner in 5 ' Semester. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the respondent No. 2-College, on 04.03.2010 (Annexure R/2-2) has sent the corrected (T.A.) sessional marks awarded to the petitioner, to the respondent No.l-University, but the result ofthe petitioner, thereafter, has not been declared. Shri Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No. 1- University submits that the (T.A.) sessional marks sent by the respondent No. 2-College has been received after declaration ofthe final results and on the basis ofmarks sent earlier, the petitioner has been found 'failed'. Thus, after declaration ofthe final results, there cannot be any correction in the marks, whether it is sessional marks or any other marks. 'Slli 'v' ^v II 1; 81 ISi!: ^v:K M- S'l; fe'SF ffi; IB i|j^ w^: ^^ I •';•;; ,;i; SvS 1 ss lilii !iliil fflii iHI Bl: 1!H IS. "ws I'K' '^•<'^'III a •^' SiliB'^ IIE: IIE tll ;^!:;E!. II "M^ III "sx II lli Amit 2 Be that as it may, this is a technical objection raised by the University. If there is an error in the marks sent earlier which has been discovered by the respondent No.2-College later on and was immediately forwarded to the University on 04.03.2010, it would not be proper not to grant benefit to the petitioner who has been declared failed, as it appears that after taking into account the sessional marks sent later by the College, the petitioner may be declared passed. This defect can not be attributed to the petitioner. Having regard to the facts situation of the case and in exercise of equity jurisdiction', the University is directed to take into account the marks which has been sent by the respondent-College on 04.03.2010 and declare the result ofthe petitioner, afresh, as early as possible, preferably within a period oftwo weeks. It is made clearthat the direction in this case shall not be treated as precedent. It is expected that the College authorities and other authorities have to stickto the time schedule as provided under the ordinances and other instructions, in future, failing which that may lead to adverse consequences. With the above observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. No order asto costs. _,^_- - -— --- ~ Sd/- SattebK.Agn Judge ibotn gi: .IK:,