Dixit 1 WP-10081-11 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.10081 OF 2011 Purvi Nalin Thakkar ... Petitioner V/s. Shivaji University & Ors. ... Respondents Mr. M.L. Patil for the Petitioner. Mr. R.S. Khadapkar for the Respondents. CORAM : B.H. MARLAPALLE & SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, JJ. DATE : 23 RD NOVEMBER, 2011. P.C. : 1. We have heard Mr. Patil, the learned Counsel for the Petitioner. The Petitioner is a student in the third year of B.E. (Computer Science). The examination for the fifth semester is scheduled to be held on 24th November, 2011 and as the Petitioner has failed in Mathematics-II paper, she is not eligible to appear for the fifth semester examination. 2. The Petitioner had appeared for the Mathematics-II Examination on 27th May, 2011 and in the result declared on 2nd August, 2011, she was declared to have failed. At the first instance, therefore, she had applied for photocopy of the answer sheet, which was supplied to her and, thereafter, she applied for revaluation of the marks awarded for Question No.6(a). Her application was considered by the Redressal Committee and by letter dated 3rd November, 2011, the Deputy Registrar (PG Examination) of the Respondent-University informed Dixit 2 WP-10081-11 the Petitioner that the Redressal Committee did not recommend her case for revaluation. Hence, this Petition. 3. Admittedly, as per the directions given by this Court (D.B.) in Writ Petition No.2636 of 2004, the Respondent-University has framed guidelines for revaluation of answer books. The procedure for revaluation has been set out. The guidelines state that if the Redressal Committee finds substance in the examinee’s justification and claim and recommends revaluation, then those cases shall be reassessed. As per Ordinance 106-B, the Redressal Committee consists of (a) the Dean of the Faculty concerned; (b) the Chairman of the Board of Studies; (c) one subject expert with 15 years of teaching experience; and (d) the Controller of Examination as Member Secretary. 4. Mr. Khadapkar, the learned Counsel for the Respondent-University has placed before us a copy of the grievance committee proceedings and it appears that three members were present when the Petitioner’s case was considered. The Dean of the Faculty concerned was not present. However, the expert in the subject was present. The Ordinance states that the presence of subject expert in the meeting of Redressal Committee shall be mandatory and the Redressal Committee shall verify the original answer books and photostat copy of the same and evaluate the marks allotted in the light of the grievance of the Petitioner and the points of challenge to revaluation put down by the Applicant in her application and shall make specific recommendations in writing. The Redressal Committee did not find any substance in the prayer for revaluation made by the Petitioner and, therefore, the Respondent-University has rejected the request for revaluation. Dixit 3 WP-10081-11 5. The validity of the guidelines framed for revaluation by the Respondent- University is not under challenge before us. No doubt, if one more mark is awarded to the Petitioner, she will be eligible for getting the benefit of seven grace marks and may be declared pass in Mathematics-II. But, that by itself is no reason for us to hold that the view taken by the Redressal Committee is erroneous and direct the revaluation of the answer sheet. The procedure that is followed by the Respondent-University is in keeping with the Ordinance and the guidelines framed for revaluation. 6. Hence, this Petition fails. The same is hereby rejected. [SMT. NISHITA MHATRE, J.] [B.H. MARLAPALLE, J.]