OP HIOH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ ADpeal No.356 of 2010 APPELLANT: ChhattJsgarh Swami Vlvekanand Technical University, North Park Avenue, Sector 8, Bhilai (Chhattisgarh) Versus RESPONDENTS: Ankit Agarwal, S/o Shri Prakash Agarwal, aged about 21 years, student of Bachelor of Engineering at Ugantar Institute of Technoiogy & Management, Rajnandgaon (CG) Yugantar Institute of Technotogy and Management Through its Registrar, Vitlage Tekva, Distt. Rajnandgaon (CG) Examination Controller Yugantar instltute of Technology and Management, Rajnandgoan (CG) Present: Shrl Yashwant Sjngh Thakur, counsei for the appeHant. Shri Abhishek Sinha, counsel for respondent No-1. Djvision Bench: Hoit'bte Shri Dhjrendra Mishra & Hon'ble Stiri R.N. Chandrakar. JJ. JUDGMENT (18-10-2010) l. With the consent of the parties; the matter was heard finaKy for dlsposal at the admlssion stage. 2 Respondent No.1 is a regular student of B.E. (Computer Science), a 4 years degree course. He applled for revaluation of his answer books of his 2 backlog papers of second semester in which he appeared and resuit of which was declared on 27^h March, 2010. Hls request was rejected on the ground that Ordinance No.6 (Annexure-P/2) provides that revaluation of the answer book would not be applicable for backtog papers. However, allowing the writ petition preferred by respondent ^lo.l/petltioner, the appellant unjversity has been dtrected to decide the ^c application of respondent No.1 for revaluation of answer scripts of respondent No.l/petitioner of Applled Mathemgitfes-1! in aecordance with Ordjnance No.14 (Annexure-P^), to the extent it te provided in the said Ordinance. 3 Shri Yashwant Singh Thakur, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, reiteratingthe argumente advanced before the writ Court, argued that as per clause-18 of the Ordmance No.6, revaluation Is permitted speciflcally for regular papers and not for backlog, as Ordinance No.6 stands amended after obtalning approval of the Chancellor on 7-4-2010, whereas, respondent No.1 applled for revaluation of his backlog paper on 12-4-2010 i.e after the date of amendment taking effect. Ordlnance No.6 js applfeable to all examinations of the Universlty for degree or dlploma courses and accordingly, it supersedes all the rutes dealjng with the examSnation, revaluation ete. and the Ordmance No.6 jtself shall prevail in case of any conflict bet\^een Ordinances and in the present case, wjth Ordinance No.14. 4 On the other hand, Shri AbhSshek Sinha, learned counsel appearSng for respondent No.1 argued that amendment in Orcfinance No.6 came'infro force on 7-4-2010 after jt obtalned approval of the Chancellor on 7-4- 2010 whereas result was dedared on 27-3-2010 and thus, cause of actlon was available to respondent No.1 even before Ordinance No.© was amended. 5 It was further argued that there js no provision ?n the Ordinance No.6 expressly overrullng Ordinance No.14 which is specjflcajly applteable to B.E. 4 years degree course. Clause 12.2 of Ordtnance No.14 provides for revaluatlon of answer scripts for 1 or 2 theory subjects and under the said ordjnance, there is no stlpulation that It is applfoable only to revaluation of answer books of the regular examination and that the revaluation of the answer books wlll not be appiteable for backlog papers. Further referring to ctause-1 of Ordinance No.6, it was argued that amended ordinance is applicable for all the examlnations of degree or dipjoma courses of the University unless there is anythtng ^^: :--^""%, .IjiailgiSiil! WffiRSiSSSSiS' repugnant in the subject or context which cleariy saves the provisions of clause-12.2 of Ordinance No.14, which is applicable only for B.E. 4 years degree course. 6 Heard (earned counsel for the parties. Perused the provisjons contained Sn Ordinance No.14 (Annexure-P/3) as well as OrdJnance No 6 (Annexure-P/2) as aiso the jmpugned order. 7. Learned Single Judge, keeping in vtew the fact that Ordinance No.14 is specificaljy for BE 4 years degree course and that it is a special law and further considering that there js no provjsion in the subsequent Ordinance No.6 indicatlng the intention or otherwise to supersede or repeat or overrule the special ordinance No.14 dealing with 4 years degree course, held that Ordlnance No.14, being the speciat law, would be applicable to the facts of the present case on hand and accordingly, allowed the petition. 8 We are In agreement wth the above reasoning assigned by tearned Single Judge for allowing the writ petition and we do not find any substance in this appeal, the same deserves to be and is accord'ingly dismi&sed in fimhe. . — — Barve Sd/- Dhirendra Mishar Judge Sd/- R.N. Chandrakar Judge /