1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY, NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR Writ Petition No. 1741 of 2008 (Anant Avinash Patil .vs. Mah. University of Health Sciences & Ors.) -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Office Notes, Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders or directions : Court's or Judge's orders and Registrar's orders. -=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-= Mrs. U.A.Patil, Counsel for the Petitioner. Mrs. T.D.Khade, Counsel for the R-1 & 2. Mr. P.D.Meghe, Counsel for the R-3. CORAM : D.D.Sinha and Smt. Vasanti A. Naik, JJ. DATE : May 6, 2008. Heard the learned counsel for the parties. The writ petition is directed against the communication dated 29.03.2008 issued by the Controller of Examinations, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik, whereby the Dean/Principal of respondent no.3 College is informed that after declaration of the result, the internal Assessment Marks received by the petitioner cannot be changed. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that though the petitioner has appeared in the concerned practical examination held in the month of November-2007, however, the format of the internal Assessment Marks 2 reveals that the petitioner was absent on the date when the practical examination was held. The counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the said format does not reveal the correct position and in fact the petitioner did appear in the concerned practical examination, and therefore, the impugned communication cannot be sustained in law. Mrs. T.D.Khade, the learned counsel for the respondent nos. 1 and 2, on the other hand, has submitted that the internal Assessment Marks format forwarded by the respondent no.3 College shows that the petitioner did not appear in the practical examination and there was no signature of the petitioner on the said statement, and therefore, the communication was issued to the College in this regard and it is only thereafter the format (Assessment Marks) submitted by the respondent no.3 College demonstrates the signature of the petitioner on the re-submitted document. However, so far as the aspect of petitioner participating in the concerned practical examination is concerned, it remained unchanged, and therefore, the impugned communication is sustainable in law. Mr.P.D.Meghe, the learned counsel for the respondent no.3 College, has supported the contention 3 canvassed by the counsel for the petitioner and has submitted that the petitioner did appear in the concerned practical examination and the relevant documents in this regard were also forwarded to the University accordingly. We have considered the contentions canvassed by the respective counsel. It appears that the stand of the petitioner and the respondent no.3 College is inconsistent with the stand taken by the Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik. In the normal course, this Court would not have gone into the disputed question of fact, however, as the issue pertains to the future of the student, we dispose of the petition with a direction to the Controller of Examinations, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik to conduct a short enquiry in this regard and take a decision within two weeks from the date of communication of this order, after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner as well as to the Principal of the respondent no.3 College. We expect the Controller of Examinations, Maharashtra University of Health Sciences, Nashik to also verify the concerned record of the College before taking the decision. The Controller of Examinations, Maharashtra University of Health 4 Sciences, Nashik should take a decision independently on its own merits without being influenced by any of the observations made by us in this order. Steno copy of this order be furnished to the parties. JUDGE JUDGE Apte