PETITIONER: RESPONDENT: / i Yogesh kumar Sonwani, S / o. Shri P.L.SonWani, Age 19 ysars, R/0.Durga Chouck, Doundi, District— Durg (C.G.), Student of B.Com Final, Govt V.N.College, G.E.Road Durg VERSUS THE REGISTRAR Pr. RAVISHANKER UNIVERSITY RAIPUR [CV G. ] TITION UNDER ARTICLE 2%(227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA K, IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION NO. ................. [2005 WRIT PE Heard Mr. Ashok Vaishnay, counsel for the petitioner, on admission. By this writ petition under} Article 226/227 of ihe Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed to direift the respondent authorities to p’roctuce the answer sheete of Corporate Accounting & Engtieh sobjecte and same may be got sotutinized by an expert“ The case of the petitioner is that he is a student of 8Com. finat. He had appeared in B.Com Part-it examination, he attempted ail the questions of Corporate Accounting & English papers and expected very good marks as he answered all the questions correc'tty‘ but he has been awarded t2 marks in Corporate Accounting and 30 marks in English‘ whereas he was confident to secure more than 82 marks tn Corporate Accounting and more than ‘50 marks in English. The petitioner applied for revaluation but it appears that the answer sheets have not been reualuated properly and therefore, the petitioner has been informed no change Having heard learned c unsel tor the petitionerhl have perused the writ petition and the relevant re ord. Perueat of the marks sheet (Annexure P—5) shows that tn first paper t English subiect the petitioner secured 43 marks and in second paper h secured 30 marks, thereby out of 15$ he secured 73 marks. Same is e case in Acoounting subject in Which he secured 12 marks in first pap r and 5O marks in second paper, in alt he seoured 62 marks out of t50. 2 erusal of the previous marks sheet Annexure P—2 of B.Com Part-l shows tha the petitioner secured onty 5 marks in first paper of Accounting subject nd this time he has secured 12 marks. Similarly, in previous examine ion, the petitioner secured 39 marks in 2'” paper of English subject and his time he secured 30 marksin the same SP/FS/2005 - 20,000 W?TW(WE) (mwarm anémsrm ‘ mmmsnéa W%#$W _ ' a 7-11-2005 mam ainias W ‘ §©ég0J r_..« mzoo ériiq‘wmrtéaim Wéjésxm mmW :méer ,QF aubject. Therefore, it i5 not a c1 been awarded i0 the peiitionm 5h sheets are compared the perfon Mareover, {he petitioner had app ihe University, and no charrge ha: Therefore, in the above c petitioner has not been able ici ordinary jurisdiction under Article petition is iiabie to be diamissecl a mmlffwm $Wm€w ase where it can be said th’at marks have coking to the conecience. i§ the two marks mance of the petitioner is aimoet eimilar. lied for revaluation that has been clone by l r been found on revaluation. r rcumstances, l am of‘the opinion that the make out a case for invoking the extra 226/227 of the Constitution of tndia, The ncl it i3 accordingly, dismissed, in limine. m Sd/- L.C.Bhadoo Judge & SP/FS/zoo5 -2o,ooo {a t'l New (tame)