1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO. 5988 OF 2010. Ganesh Mukharuji Dhote .Vrs. Rashtra Sant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University, Nagpur ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's or directions and Registrar's orders. Orders. (Mr. N.N.Thengre, Advocate for petitioner.) -0-0- CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI & P.D.KODE, J J. DATED : 06 th July, 2011 The grievance in the petition is, to revalue the petitioner's M.A.(Part-I) examination answer paper in subject English (Paper- II). Shri Thengre, learned Counsel for petitioner states that this Court has earlier on 22nd December, 2010 kept open the issue of taking action against the valuers for consideration at the time of final disposal of writ petition. He invites attention to reply/affidavit filed by respondent Nagpur University on 18.04.2011, to urge that, it is 2 not disclosing the true and correct state of affairs. He relies upon counter affidavit filed by petitioner to oppose that reply. He requested the Court to call for the original answer paper and to examine it to find out whether it has been revalued properly or then to place it before Chairman of Board of Studies for its due consideration. Mr. Kulkarni, learned Counsel points out that, the counter affidavit as filed later, there are no personal allegations of malafides against anybody. This Court by order dated 22nd December, 2010 has kept the issue of proceeding against the valuer open. He states that the answer paper was then sent to two experts. Alive to the grievance of petitioner as contained in paragraph No.08 of the writ petition, the two experts have independently evaluated the answer paper and as the cumulative effect thereof was not sufficient in accordance with and as per the provisions of the Direction No.5 of 2004, the result “no change” was communicated to petitioner. We have perused the reply/affidavit and 3 we find that one expert awarded 54 marks out of 100 while other expert awarded 51 marks out of 100. The average of both valuations is 52.5 marks (53 marks). The provisions of Direction No.5 of 2004 are very clear and if the change is more than 10% on either side as compared to original marks, the marks given in reassessment can be taken into account. Thus difference required to change valuation is of 10 % and here it is only about 6 %. The petitioner has not made any allegations of malafides against any valuer or against and then any other officer of Nagpur University and hence we find the grievance being made without any merit. Accordingly, petition is rejected. No costs. JUDGE JUDGE scd//