^~ \£n5~) HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGARH, BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (Cl NO.S?.6f...OF 2011 PETITIONER ^^^> 'y ^r- RESPONDENT Ku. Pooja Jaiswal, D/o Ratan Jaiswal, Aged about 20 years, R/o MIG-II-20, Housing Board Colony, Industrial Area, Bhilai, Durg, Chhattisgarh. VERSUS Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University, North Park Avenue, Sector-8, Bhilai, through Registrar, Chhattisgarh. WRIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA. ^::^^^'%^ t^^^^S^ HIGH CQURT OF CHMATTISGARM : BILASPUR PETITIONER RESPONDENTS WRrTPETITION_(C) NQ.336^1 QF2011 Ku. Pooja Jaiswal Versus Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand Technical University 1. 2. 3. (Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India) Single Bench : Hon'bte Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present:- Shri T.K. Tiwari Advocate for the petitioner. Shri Y.S. Thakur, Advocate for the respondent. ORDER (ORAL) (Passed on this 29th day of June,2011) Heard learned counsel for the parties. By this petition, the petitioner seeks a direction to the respondent University to produce the answer sheet of the petitioner before this Court and further direct the respondent to make arrangement for checking of the answer sheet of the petitioner by an expert before this Court. The petitioner also seeks a direction to the respondent to supply copy of the answer sheet to the petitioner relating to the subject matter i.e. Applied Maths (Examination Nov. - Dec. 2010). Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the student of 2 year of Engineering Course. The petitioner appeared in the main examination of Applied Maths in the year 2009 unsuccessfully. Thereafter, she appeared 2 time in the said examination unsuccessfully. The petitioner applied for revaluation, but the respondent University declined for revaluation on the ground that there is no provision for the same. The petitioner again appeared in the said examination held in November - December, 2010 and according to her she solved 60 questions correctly. However, she was declared failed as she got only 11 marks out of 80 marks. Thereafter, the petitioner moved an application before the University for supply of answer sheet, but the respondent University declined to provide the answer sheet to the ' petitioner. Learned counsel submits that the conduct of the respondent University is illegal and arbitrary. Learned counsel placed reliance upon the decision of this Court in Ku. Meena Verma v. Board of Secondary Education Chhaftisgarh, Raipur and upon the decision of the Division Bench of the High Court of Madhya 2005(1)MPMT 49 (CG) .^ Gowri Pradesh in Phyanka Pandey v. Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, M.P. & Anr2 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent University submits that there is no provision for revaluation of the answer sheets, thus the request of the petitioner cannot be entertained. 5. In Ku. Meena Venna (supra), a direction to correct the mark sheet of the petitioner, therein, was passed in view of the fact that there were allegations of mass-copying, manipulations and other irregularities in the examination. 6. In Priyanka Pandey (supra), the Division Bench ofthe High Court of Madhya Pradesh, directed for revaluation keeping in view of the fact that the record of the petitioner therein was throughout meritorious and the petitioner therein had obtained good marks in other examinations. 7. The facts involved in the abovestated cases and the direction passed in that background, are not applicable to the facts of the instant case, as the petitioner herein has neither pleaded nor made out a case that she has obtained earlier good marks in all the examinations except the present one. The valuation and revaluation is the subject matter of experts. This Court cannot intervene in the valuation of the answer sheets done by the experts in the field. 8. As an upshot, the writ petition is shorn of merit and is accordingly dismissed. —- - Sd/- SATBH K. ANGNMORI Judge