MI^H COURT OF CHHATTIS^ARH AT BILASPUR Writ Patition (c^ No.5392 of 2009 (Petjtion under Art-icie 226 of the Constitution of India) -^ pEnnoNER RESPONDENT Ku. Sonal Jaiswai Vs Chhattisgarh Swami VJvekancxnd Technjcal University, Durg '¥ POST FOR ORDER ON 7th DECEMBER. 2009 Sd/- Dhirendra Mishra Judge Q77I27^0^- u!!r .^- ^. ^ HI^H COURT OF CHH^TTIS^RH. BILASPUR W.P. (cyNo.5392/2009 (Petition under Articl®226i of th®Constitution of India) Pefitioner Vs Respondent Ku. Sohol Jdswal, D/o Shri R.P. Jdswal, aged about 20 years, R/o Quarter No.l-A, Street-21, Sector- 2. Bhiid. District burq (CG) ^ : • ' • • ' Chhattisgarh Swami Vivekanand TechnicaJ University, Throu9h its Registrar, Bhiiai, District DurgCCe) Pr®s@nt: Mr< M,P.S. BhdtJa,AdvocQte for the petitioner, Mr, Yashwant Singh Thakur/Adyocate for 1fie respondent. O R b E R (Passed on °3^2.2009) P@r Dhirendra Mlshra. J: 1, The petitioner wcxs reguiar student of sixth sen Ster pf B.E, Course, She was deciared fajJ in the examination of Basic EIectrical Engineering of second semester ouid tiierefore, she was not ailowed to oppear in the sixth semester examination. Earlier W.P. (c) No.2081/2009 of the petitioner was disposed of vide order dated 9.7.2009 dnd the respondent was directed to revaluate oinswer sheet of the petitioner. After revaiuation of Basic EIectrical EnQineerino pdper.the result was declared and there was no change in the marks of the petitioner. The petitioner applied for photocopy of the revaiued oinswer sheet of Basic Electrical Engineering paper for making furtherapplication for re-revaluation but 1+i©respondent vide order dated 9.9.2009 (Annexure P-1) refused to supply the photocopy of revaiued answer sheet on the ground that Itiere is no such direction fromthe High Court 2, Learned CQunsel for the petitioner submits 1+iat as per notification dated 5.7.2008 (Annexure P-4) re-revaluation is permissibte, however, as per procedure prescribed in the notificQtion, the candidate applying for re" revaluation js required to obtain photocopy of revalued answer sheets within ten days from declaration of revaiuation result and the appJication Js to be cxccompdnied with a fee of Rs,5QO/-. He further submits that the petitioner came to know that she had obtained 41 marks in the r@vaJuatio>n_ ?i;if 2 A} o- of her answer sheet of Basic EJectrjcal Engineering subject, however, she was communicoited Vio change' in fi+ie result by the re^pndent as the respondent has made it a prestigious issue, Revaluation ha3 not been done in accordance wjth Rule 27 of the Ordinoince No.5, Witii these averments, the petitioner prayed for direction to the respondents to re-revaluate the Basic Electrical Engineering Dq^e.r of second semester of the petitioner by any independent examiner oind has also prayed for direction to the respondent to supply Xerox copy of 1+ie revaiued answer sheet of Basic Electrical Engineering subject and in th© meanwhile direct the respondent to aliow the petitioner to appear jn the sixth semester as backlog ouid in case she poissed in re-revaluation, to grant her admission in seventh semester. 3. Learned counsei for the respondent-Universjt/ submits that WP. (c) No.2081/09 was disposed of on the basis of written submissions filed by the counsel appearing for the respondent university that the euiswer sheets of. the Basic Electrical Enginesering subject of the supplementary examination in second semester of 1tie petitioner wili be revalued as a special case and result would be accordingly deciaredl within reasonabJe time. Accordingly, revaluation of her supplementary examination answer sheet was done and the result ino change'was duly deciared on 22.8.2009, The petitioner wcxs given an opportunit/ for revaluation on sympjathetic 9r'ound ois a speciaJ case, however, the petitioner is not entitted for re- revaluation. It was further submitted that in accordance with Clause 3.5 of the Ordinance No.14 of the uniyersity, a candidate cannot be admitted in fifth or sixth semester unless he or she has fully poissed/cleared the firstand second semester examinations respectively* Since the petitjoner has not cleared the second semester examination, she ccxnnot be admitted in sixth semester examinatson. As per decjsion of the Examination Councii in its meeting dated 19.7,2006, revaluation is not permitted in suppiementary exGmination and only re-totding is permitted- Since the petitioner has not cleared the - ^- l^- Basic Electrical Engineering paper of second semester, she cannot be gmnted regular admission in the sixth serriester^ 4. I have heard iearned counsel for the parties. 5. W.P. (c) No.2081/09 was disposed of vide order dated 9.7.2009 (Annexure P~3) In which submjssion of the tearned counsel for the respondent University was recorded that as a Speciai case, if the answer sheets of the petitioner are available, the same shaJI be revalued and results would be deciared accordingly within reasonabJe tirne. It appears that thereafter the universit/ declared the result of revduation ond no chc^ge was communicated to the petitioner. The petitioner thereafter dppJied for photocopy of the revafued answer sheets, however, 1+ie same was refused by fhe respondent-univer'sity yide its memo dated 9-9,2009, 6. In order to verify the averments made by the petiti'oner in Para 9,5 of the petition, the answer book of Basic EIectrical Engineermg subject after revaiuatjonwas requisitioned for pemsal. 7. Clause 22 of Ordinance No,5 deals with revaJuation which reads thus: f?22. Where a candsdate appiies for revaiuation the answer book in which revaluation is ^oyght will be sent for valuation by the Kulpati, to two exammers (other theui one who initiaJJy valued it) at least one of whom shail b@ from the place outside the State of Chhattisgarh. Ten answer books yalued by the same examiner and a copy of ttie memorandum of Instructions for the auidance of the examiner if prepared by the pcoer setter wjlJ be sent to each of the two examiners to enabJe them to evaluate the answer book concerned in the light of the standard set by the Bxaminer and the memorandum of jnstructjons. If tess tha^ ten candidates had cvppeared at the examsnation in the poper concerned the answer book of ail the candidates shaIJ be sent to each of the examiners, Each of two examiners shall receiye remuneratjon as decided by University for the revaJuation of an answer book/ (2) If the marks awardcd in the paper by any of the two examiners varies from the marks given by tiie original examiner bymore than . ^fiS^^^ c- 10% of the maxjmum marks in the paper, the average of the marks awarded by two of 1tse examiners, the original examiner and the two revaJuers and nearest to each other wili be taken to represent the 'correct valuation^ This average of marks wii! be awarded to the candidate for the revision of his result Provided that subject to the condition that atleast one of the variations from the origjnal marks is more than 107o of the maximum marks, in the paper if two difference in marks allotted by the three exainjners are equal, the two marks to the best advantage of the candidate shaJI be taken Jnto account for arriving at the correct valuation^ From perusai of the marks awarded to the petitioner after revaluation and comparing it with the onginal marks obtas'ned by the petitioner in the suppiementary examination, the communication of result of iino change" by the respondent university is strictiy in accordance with Rule 22 of the Ordinance No,5- Annexure P-4 is the notification dated 5.7.2008 issuedby the Universit/ for re-revaluation of the answer books, The aforesaid notification has been issued with referencc: to itnplementationof the decisso" of 12th meeting of the Co-ordination Committee of Universities, From perusal' of 1tie aforesaid notification it is clear that the candidates of main examination, who desire to apply for re-revaluation of their respective answer books, are required to first obtain photocopy of the answer book and for that purpose 1+iey have to apply on prescribed appiication form abng with the fee of Rs.SOOA wilttiin ten d'ays from the date of deciaration of revaluation result. After going through the Xerox copy of the answer book, the ccrsdidate can apply for re-revaiuation by paying the prescribed fee of Rs.600/" within 15 days frorn the date of declaration of revaluation result. Thus, re-revaluation is permissibie only with respect to answer books of the main examinatipn and it has no application whatsoever to the answer books of the supptementary examination. ^7S:'"ih 1 ^'k.^^' 1: '• 1 ;^r? 1; ( 10.0n the basis of aforesaid oinaJysis, the decision of 1+ie respondent university in refusing the request of tiie petitioner to re-revaluate the answer book of Basic Eiectrical Engineerjng poiper of second semester suppiementary examination is in accordcince witii 1+ie notification of Annexure P-4 d'ated 5.7.2008, Rules, Regulations and Ordinances of the respondent-University and no relief.asprayed for in the writ petition, can be granted to the petitioner. ___— 11. Accordingiy, the petition is dismissed. §^/. i Dhirendra Mishra l Judge