^^^ f^^Jch TT^T 'STI^T $h^icb C4?' T^ ^iWW^, «ITfi^<l<S, IsfOl^y W^v\{ *<41<4» •^ 200 3n^?T TI5T5F (4^^^) ^nw^f^3?n^T <=M<4f<n<flT1 ^l*4<;ll ^f^St <^1<^H i?'3tRw^n^r PETITIONER Vs WP rfcl N0.73/2007 Dines^i Kumar Chandra, S/o Shri Shyam Lal Cljiandra, Aged about 27 years, R/o Triven|i Nagar, Jabarapara, Distt. Bilaspur (CG) RESPONDENTS 1. Gui it's 2. Dei Gh| 3. Dej Dal \u Ghashi Das University Through |Registrar, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^uty Registrar (Confidential) Guru ^shi Das University, Bilaspur (C.G.) ^uty Registrar (Exam.) Guru Ghashi ^ University, Bilaspur (C.G.) Present: Mr. Vinay Pandey/Advocate flor the petitioner. Mr. Ashish Shrivastava, Advo|cate for the respondents. Per Dhiresndra Mishra»3; The petitioner appea) Computer Application examiil •ed in the Post Graduate Diploma in lation conducted by the respondent Guru Ghasidas University in the njionth of March-April, 2006, however, he was dedared fai! in one s|ubject i,e. computer fundamentals. He applied for revaluation of |his paper i.e. computer fundamentals, however, 38 marks, which |e received out of 100 marks, remained unchanged. He approached jthe authorities of universities, obtained the photocopy of answer-sh^set after revaluation and discovered that two questions attempted by these averments the petit him were not property evaluated. With oner has prayed for direction to the r8s^T^8 ^•y 3T7^T^ f<<l[ch Tl^T 'STT^T $b^ich L "' 'v _A ~3:vS[ ^W\<ft^, ^WW, tsj^l^y WVtv\{ tb^leh •W^ 200 3ff^?T 1P^TO ( lj^fl<i<<i^) ^RTTW ^rf^f ^TT^T ^ Chancetlbr university toagain revaluatej concerned authority to grant| Learned counsel for Ordinance & Statute of Univ^ been revaluated. Howeveii competence of Vice to the petitioner and th'is to the Vice Chancellor for cot Mr. Shrivastava, leari) respondents submits that empowered to award one appeared in the Post Gradi Statute do not permit the daimed by the petitioner. Having heard tearnecj opinion that learned counsel| provisions under the Statul provides for discretion with nor he could point any st^ which entitles him for the reg Consequently, there i^ deserves to be dismissed anl the obi^f<rt<iiTi ^i*i<nl ^fe^t <Pfl^i< '^s^tfim^n^T his paper or in the alternative direct the |him two grace marks. petitioner fairly submits that as per ^rsity, paper of the petitioner has akeady he submits that jt is within the of universjty to allow two grace marks pefition may be disposed ofwith a direction ^sidering the case of the petitioner. |ed counsel appearing on behalf of the Vice Chancellor of university is only |mark as grace to the examinees who |ate Examinations and the Ordinance & liniversity to allow two grace marks, as counsel for the parties, I am of the |for the petitioner could not point out any |e & Ordinance appltcable to him which |the University to allow two grace marks k^tutory right avaitable to the petitioner, Sefdaimed in this petition. no substance jn this petftion, the same accordingly, it is dismissed.__—- Sd/- DhirendraMishra Judge