T^- IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BILASPUR (CHHATTISGARH) W.P.No?8^;> / 2006 €6^s^f< ^ '^^:^^ lE'ibLi" i8'i"atjii- Petitioner ^ Kishore Patel S/o Shri Ashok Kumar Patel, Aged about 23 years, R/o Katra Road, Vikas Nagar, Raigarh (C.G.) Versus ..^. 1) Respondents '.-^^. ^€^>' ^lN^.-''"' 2) ^f ^^n Guru Ghasidas University - Through its Registrar, Guru Ghasidas University, Koni, Bilaspur(C.G.). The Government Engineering College - Through its Principal, Government Engineering College, Koni, Bilaspur (C.G.) ~mclT-[rr&-peunurre;] rtTcry-rr^i y^-i-n i< ^u; sn^r^ir f^iwsn^r **<i*yRd 6- •3ii^i <4acb , 1 / ^-.U3...e-..N.o,,^<2^0 / 6-fc «i*<ni!»i«ith-—T"-———— g^ 200^ R'b.A *W^^ t<l*<dTfffe><fl <Rfw<: ^3l1^tT3(l^T Shri P. Diwakar, Sr Counsel for thc petitioner. Shri ManindraSl Advocate wifh Shri P.R. Patankar, jastava, Sr. Advocate witfa Shri Amrito Das, couasel for respondetit No.l. Shri Yashwant Siji^i, leamed Govt Advocate for respondent No.2/State. Heard. Petitioncr is a stude it ofGoveinment Bngneering Ctoltege, Kotii, Bilaspur, afiSIiate4 with Guru Ghasidas Uiuversity, Bilaspur. In May - June| 2003, petitiDner appeared in the 4th semester of Mechanical ^ngincering courae, but was awardcd supplementary ia ttie subj given 28 marks in fhc tect of Production Technotogy and was subjecfc Subscquenfly, petitioner appeared twice ia suppl^mentary exammation of fhe subject Production Technotogr, b|ut on both occasioiis he was declared unsuccessful and agai4 the same marks were repeated. Pfctidoner for lus adinissi^n m P.G. course appeaied in entrance exainination whfch is Bxammation (GATE) and known as Graduate Aptitude Test [successfuUy passed the same, but duc to non-cteaiance in his |exanriaation iu the subjcct Productfon Technology, hc a unabl^ to seek admission in P.0. Thc fhen Prmcipal, Shn I.K. Kha4na who was fhe subject teacher was uafaappy and annoyed |wiffa fhe_BetitioD£iL_aad__hri_o^n}y r B !t'-^''-^S 6all ^'^^ lija' HIIMI n>«|i»> R'b»d an^rqir fSFlwan^T snirogf^cT 3(1^1 6'KIIWflf^r --Z *i'i|tfi41-( i(itidTtffe'<rl <Rtui<. ^sri^iTsn^r Shri threatened him that fhe subject and unfortimately sheets were cxammed by meager inaiks succeedcd There is 110 provisictn examinatioii. Thereforc, marks have been gisen te)| Iiis answcr sheets option to approach fhe sheetsofthe appeaied m fhe ]ast p|etitk)itcr witt not get fhiough in his 4>n afl the three occasioas hfa answer S^iri I.K. Khaniia who by ©'nngsuch a hte object for revaluation in supplementaiy on aU fhe occasknas such poor fhe pctitioner, but he couM not get Therefore, petittoner had onfy fbr getting re-checked his answer fin: wfaich fae bas in November- December 2005 tl|iough re-checlted Colirt subject of PTttduction Techaotogy exaiuination h4s and accordm^y he prayed Respondent No, 1 unveilmg the system top confidential and ia past he could not was declarcd fafled m thosfc in SUppfcmentary fvsnninprijirms ofvaluation peti.ti^ner's succted fhe fhen Prmctpal has b^en aDcgatfons, but he was iiDt| Learaed counad. fof petitioner has an ex<3eBent|record succeed m. cntrance examibation, but Shri I.K. Khanna, fh4 br tfae relief. raised objectfoiis to fhe petitton of fhe answer sheets which is previous record, exposing fhat in various subjects, fherefore, he subjects and was aBowed to appear CharacterofShriI.K. Khaxma, inaU®acdby serfous scandalous inade party in fhe instant petitfoxi. fhe petitioncr contended fhat fhe and as a result he was abte to lation, for admission ia P.G. Coursc, fhen Principal who threatened jUie 3<|^| ^isich *<I*ICTI sniiqi •-----------•••••-•••g^ 200 lc|'()»d STI^TW R-fi+sn^r sh*iro yRt] ail^KkllWflfeT -^ calli4g Oii ofhemtise petitioner to ruin his caree); answer sheets, who aB fhe| his subjects. Therefore, to| Court is necessaiy by same to bc re-valuated. respondents opposcd fhe and accordmg to it, if permissible in fhat case o1f calfed and revalued re-vahiation ofhis aaswerl Khaim has bcen maligned| not inade party and m obtainmg reUef, it witt against him, without which is agassst fhe law. Bsrainmatioa and In answer sheets oiify possibte for exaininer to id^i aaswer sheets beiug top c<|>i answer sheets have been Petitioner himself for re-valuatton of fhe cxaminatton, (Iicrefore, h^ claimas ofright sftme re-valiiditfon +i^fo'in-f tiiii-il'ifte^ <Riwi< ^sri^rsn^T 4" has asaigned fhrice to evatuatc his times declared him unsucoessful ia Iproteet his ri^it, mterventfon offhis the answer sheets and altowing the thc contrary, tearaed counsel fi»rfhc and contended ffaat law is settted accordiDg to rute re-vahiation is i^dy petitfoner's answer sbeets can be 4ise, no student as of ri^it can claim |sheets. The tben Principal Shri I.K. by scandatous chaiges, but fae was absence if petitioner succeeds in thosc scandakms chaxges pioved opportuiuty of hearing to him of naturaljustice and agaiast fhe proccditre are top coiifidentiaL nzunbera are written. It is iiot fhe answer Sheets. Vatuation of ^nfidential, no oiie can claim fhat hfo by any particular exammer. pleaded fhat fhere is no pravsion answer sheets of supplementaiy fe stopped by his own condiurt to of his answer sheets.. I^titioner t|te amolmt adfo(ding princ|ple vaUiation ^oU id^nlify vUued hdus ^' ^) KS y 3ll<<^l tis|ch *ll*»?[Tsn*<lth""••""••••••••••• gq- 200 fc|<)<' a'nW^r f^iwan^r sniro ylsa sb*1W aii^iewiWflfer L< *i«fri<fl-<tiiKcififfe^ <R|«I< ^;^R|IT3I1^T oaly fited statemeat of n|isuto of Novembcr-December, 2005. Fiom fhe record, it is ap^arent fhat in fhe subject Ptodiiction Technology out of80 iiiarlts he obtained oidy W marks aad out of '20 marks he obtamed dne. BariJer Iic was awarded the samc caarks to eslabHsh it, hc lid not produce cppics of tfaose inark sheets. His carcer was e|sceUent to support it also he dM aot produce hfe previous reco^ds. On fhe conteary, respoiiduit No. l has shown peti.tuner's cx^mination profite and his performaace in fhe past semcsters andjthe same has not been contradicted or chaltenged by fhe petitio4er> fein Us past record, it te evident fhat his past perfonaanjse was vciy poor and two or fhree attempts were not imtaioi^m to him.. Shri I.K. Khaana, has chcckcd his answer sheets in aU fhe occ^ions, to estabBsti it, no substaatial material has been brou^it on record. As concemed Uiiiversity, i\ 1 per statute and ordtDan.ee of fhe is evMent fhat the scheme of valuatfon te coitfidential ^uad it is not possibte for any student to tmow who valued his atiswer sheets. Shri I.K. Khanna the tfaen Principal has been n^aligied by serious scandaknis cbargps in the petitfon, but he ^as not iiiade a party in the instant petitfoii, and in his absen for wrealdng vengeance ^e it cannot be accepted to be true fhat a^iast fhe petitioner wifli malafide intention, Shri I.K. KhaB|na fafled him fhrice in his subject, and ^ tiB it is accepted fhat hej was a briUiant studeait who coiuld not ja'S XI-HC-22 3ST •<<I<)IC1<I, ®Tn«'IS,Islcllti^ 3ii^i <4?|ct> II*ICTI a»iicn"""""""'""" ^ 200 (°1<><A sn^T^ feraisn^T Stl*<Iq>tlR(l raju 311^1 ^wiwflfer s- fafl in fhe said subjec^ q>l<ltCT<fl-< *111flTffte<^t'<Rl«K itTa-ri^Tsn^T thiice, but was intentfoiiaBy by discruninatory valuation h^s been failed by Stui I.K. Khamafl, no relicfas prayed for could b^ aUowed to him, by the Courfc In fhe result, I am olf fhe opmion fhat the petitioner is not entitled for rcliefwtuch he |has prayed for, therefore, fhe petttion is liabte to be dismisscd. M.W.P.No.2148/2006 are 4ismissed. In view of the abovel, hearing stands disposed o^ Accordm^y, the writ petition and , oider, I.A.No.5601^106 for urgent Sdl- V.K. Shr.vastava judge --«BA \ f" ;"-t- Cft^y^-) y^