-.•<,ia^ HIGH COURTOF JUDICATURE CHHATTISGARH : BILASPUR SINOLE BENCH : HON'BLE SHRI S.R. NAYAK, CJ, WRIT PETITION N0.6553 OF2Q05 PET1TIONER Vs. RESPONDENT Kumari Bhavana Mishra, Daughter of Shri T.C. Mishra, aged 21 years, resident ofQuarter No. 6-A, Stree No. 46, Sector-X, Bhilai-Durg (C.G.) Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur, (C.G) Through : Vice Chancellor. Pressnt: Mr. Brijesh Mishra, learned counsel for the petitioner. ORALORDER (Passed on 2 January, 2006) The petitioner is a student of Shri Shankaracharya College of Engineering & Technology, Bhilai, in the Computer Science Engineering. She appeared for B.E. 8 Semester (4 year) Computer Science Engineering Examination conducted by the respondent-R. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur in the month of June 2005. In the result of the said examination, she was shown as failed in the subject of "Artificiat Intelligence & Expert System" in which she secured only 25 marks out of 100. As provided under the statute of the respondent-University, the petitioner applied for re-evaluation of her answer script in the subject of "Artiflcial Intelligence & Expert System". Even after re-evaluatton, she was not declared passed in the said subject. That has led to the filing of the present writ petition seeking intervention of the Court. (2) in para 4 of the writ petition it is stated thus:- -J :^} ''SgSsaies, "The petitioner was a regutar student of Shri Shankaracharya College of Engineering And Technology Bhilai, in the Computer Science Engineering and she has passed her 1 to VII Semester Examinations successfully with percentage of marks ranging from 69% to 76.9%. Her track record of academic acquisibon has been quite superb. It is absoiutely unthinkable and unbelievable that she would secure 25 marks out of 100 in the "Artificial Intelligence & Expert System" subject while in the other three subjects she has secured high marks. The petitioner, in order to complete her answers to the glven questions, had taken 3-4 supptementary answer books besides the originaliy provided answer book. Her performance being upto the optimum ievel and very best her securing oniy 25 marks out of one hundred gives rise to a very grave doubt that her supptementary answer books have not been evaluated or in the course of handling the supplementary answer books hight have got detached from the originat answer book and the same might not be intact with the Petitioner's original answer book, or even the revaluation might have not been done properly. However, the request of the petitioner to show her the answer books has been wrongfully declined and the attempt of the respondent is only to cover up the lapse committed by the University". (3) The setf-assessment made by the petitioner in para 4 has absolutely no bearing on the decision-making. Thers is absoluteiy nothing before the Court to doubt th®integrity of the evaluation of the answer script. It is not aven the case of the petitioner that the person who re- valued the answer script in the subject of 'Artificial Intelligence & Expert System' is biased or vindictive against the petitioner. f-urthermore, it needs to be noticed that the ground set out in para 4 of the writ petition is rooted in imagination and doubt ofthe petitioner. The petM:ioner has not ^' il::i -iW-SxiSSSSfiBS :••:"•-. '."--'^•^'-''•'.•."^•^'SsSiSc^ •s disclosed any circumstances on the basis of which the Court could possibly, as a rational agent, couid come to a conclusion Ihat the person who revaiued the answer script has not revaiued the answers written in the 3-4 suppiementary answer scripts appended to the main answer script. The Court could not be a doubting monger. Therefore, the directions sought by the petitioner cannot be granted in terms of law. The writ petition is, therefore, dismissed. There shail be no order as to costs. Sd/- Chief Justiee Judge .:>'