1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN JAIPUR BENCH, JAIPUR ORDER SB Civil Writ Petition No. 1661/2010 Ms Afsana Vs State of Rajasthan & ors 11.11.2010 HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MN BHANDARI Mr SR Surana - for the petitioner Mr Virendra Lodha – for respondent-University Mr SC Pant, Controller of Examination, RUHS BY THE COURT: The only controversy involved in this writ petition is regarding revaluation of the answer books in regard to MBBS course. Petitioner's case is that she applied for revaluation which was not only permitted but carried out. She could secure higher marks in revaluation in the subject of Anatomy and, accordingly, benefit was awarded. Vide impugned order dated 21.1.2010 (Annex-3) the aforesaid benefit was withdrawn on the ground that revaluation is not permissible beyond 25% of the total papers. It is stated that petitioner appeared in three papers and,as per permissible limit, she is entitled to seek revaluation in one paper 2 only. Accordingly, there was no illegality in declaring her pass by revaluating her copies. Respondents have, accordingly, committed error in passing the impugned order which deserves to be set aside. Learned counsel for respondent-University, on the other hand, submits that petitioner applied for revaluation in two papers out of which she could secure higher marks in the subject paper of Anatomy while her copies were revaluated. As per Ordinance petitioner was entitled for seeking revaluation in only one paper. Thus, seeking revaluation in two papers was not proper. In other paper, petitioner could not secure higher marks though she subsequently appeared in the back paper examination and qualified in that paper. The matter was taken up before the Board of Management of the University and, as per recommendations of the BOM, the impugned order was passed. I have considered rival submissions made by learned counsel for parties. It is not in dispute that revaluation can be sought to the extent of 25% of the total papers. It is also not in dispute that revaluation was permissible to the extent of one paper. The only case taken up by the respondents is that petitioner sought 3 revaluation in two papers. If that was so, respondents could have restrained revaluation to the extent of one paper only denying revaluation of other paper but respondents allowed revaluation in both the papers, which is their own mistake. In any case, petitioner could get higher marks in one paper only. Since it is not in dispute that revaluation was permissible to the extent of one paper, petitioner is entitled to get benefit accordingly leaving revaluation of other paper. This is more so when she could pass out other paper by appearing subsequently. The Controller of Examinations is also present in the court. He states that revaluation is permissible to the extent of 25% of the total papers. The reason given in the impugned order so as the reply is on that ground only. Keeping in mind the aforesaid, since petitioner was entitled to seek revaluation in one paper, I am of the view that taking into consideration the rules, revaluation is permitted to the extent of one paper only i.e. paper of Anatomy, revaluation of other paper may be ignored by the respondents and thereby their action will also remain in consonance with the rules. Cancellation of result is otherwise after a period of seven months and, in between, petitioner missed even a chance to re-appear in the aforesaid paper. Hence, equity also goes in favour of petitioner. 4 Accordingly, taking note of the rule position, the impugned order dated 21.1.2010 (Annex.3) is set aside. The result earlier declared on 10.7.2009 awarding 113 marks in the subject of Anatomy is, accordingly, maintained. Costs of the case made easy. (MN BHANDARI), J. bnsharma