1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR WRIT PETITION NO.484 OF 2009 (Seema d/o Prabhakar Talvekar vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj University and another) ___________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders Court's or Judge's orders or directions and Registrar's orders. CORAM : D.D. SINHA AND A.P. BHANGALE, JJ. DATED : APRIL 3, 2009 Heard Mrs. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, and Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent no.1. Mrs. Joshi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, states that in the instant petition, the grievance of the petitioner is regarding allocation of marks by the Valuer in respect of answer paper of `Political Science'. It is submitted that petitioner, in fact, had solved all the questions and was expecting much more marks than the marks given to her and, therefore, applied for re-valuation to the respondent University. Shri Kulkarni, learned Counsel for the respondent University, states that the competent 2 Committee has considered the issue once again and found that neither totalling, which is done nor any case was made out for re-valuation and the decision of the Committee was communicated to the petitioner. It is contended that petitioner has received merely two marks out of 40 marks in the said paper . We have considered the rival contentions of the learned Counsel for the parties. In the backdrop of the above referred facts and in the absence of allegations of malafides, it is difficult for us to hold that valuation done by the Valuer and re-valuation done by the Committee is bad in law. It is not in dispute that the Committee consisted of many members including Expert on the subject. In the circumstances, no case is made out for showing indulgence. The petition is dismissed. JUDGE JUDGE khj