H. N. TILHARI, J. ( 1 ) BY this petition, the petitioner has sought for writ of certiorariquashing the endorsement dated 17-2-1994 bearing No. GUG/exam/b. Sc. 11/93-94/10773 issued by the respondent-University copy of which Annexure-B to the writ petition to theeffect that 'there is no provision of revaluation of papers, hence,the application is returned herewith'. The petitioner has furtherprayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus to respondent torevalue the petitioner's Mathematics paper of B. Sc. II Yearexamination held in October, 1993. The facts of the case in briefare: that the petitioner appeared in II Year B. Sc. Examinationconducted by the respondent-University in October 1993 and thepetitioner appeared in all the five papers. He scored good marksin other papers but failed in the subject of Mathematics scoring31 marks out of 150 in which the minimum marks prescribed is52. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had done well inall the five subjects but failed in the subject of Mathematics. Thepetitioner annexed his marks sheet dated 16-12-1993 asannexure-B. The petitioner further submits that he wasconfident of scoring pass marks and so applied for revaluation ofthe said paper by remitting the necessary fee with anapplication, dated 15-1-1994. According to the petitioner, no;revaluation has been done and his application has been returnedvide Annexure-B dated 17-2-1994 with an observation by theuniversity authorities that there is no provision for revaluationand so application is returned. Having felt aggrieved, thepetitioner has filed this petition challenging the validity of theprovisions and the statutes of the University. According to thestatute, the petitioner is entitled for revaluation of the -paper. University authorities are bound to revalue the papers providedapplication is made with the prayer for revaluation and -depositing of prescribed fee for that purpose within thestipulated period. The petitioner submits that there is provisionfor revaluation of papers by filing the written answer scripts. But only exception is in respect of cases where there is doubleevaluation of the same subject. ( 2 ) LEARNED counsel appearing on behalf of the University submits that with regard to the filing of the counter-aindavit,that he has not filed the same on account of the prevailingstatute. He does not deny the fact that the petitioner hadappeared in B. Sc. II Year Examination and he has failed in onesubject thereunder. He said that there is no denial of the factthat the petitioner had appeared for B. Sc. He does not deny the fact that the petitioner hadappeared in B. Sc. II Year Examination and he has failed in onesubject thereunder. He said that there is no denial of the factthat the petitioner had appeared for B. Sc. II Year Examinationin October 1993 and has passed in all subjects other thanmathematics and failed in the subject of Mathematics. Thesefacts being admitted, the petitioner had appeared for B. Sc. II,year Examination in October 1993 and he had failed in thepaper of Mathematics as well that he had applied for revaluationand his application has been rejected on the ground that there isno provision for revaluation. The only question for this Court toconsider is whether there is any provision in the Act or anystatutes pertaining to revaluation and as to time limit to claimrevaluation. ( 3 ) I have heard Sri G. R. Gurumath, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S. S. Koti, learned counsel on behalf ofthe University. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends thatthere is a provision for revaluation under Statute 30 of theuniversity. Statute 30 of the University provides for revaluationand according to that provision there shall be provision forrevaluation and the revaluation of the answer scripts at allstages' of University Examination except in respect of such caseswhere system of double evaluation is already in existence in thatcases subject to some exceptions provided. Statute 30' of the University reads and is being quotedhereunder in extenso ;"statute 30 : Statute Governing Revaluation of answerscripts :there shall be a provision for revaluation of valuedwritten answer scripts at any of the University Examinations, excepting where there is double valuationsubject to the following:1. (i) Where more than one examiner is assigned for theassessment of the answer scripts of a paper dividedinto more than one sections, the revaluation shall bedone by an examiner from outside the University. (ii) Where a single examiner has assessed the answerscripts of a paper (s), the revaluation shall be done byan examiner from outside the University. 2. Revaluation shall be confined to theory papers only andthis provision shall not be applied to dissertation, practicals,project work, field work, journal, internal assessment,marks, clinical and viua-voce. 3. A candidate shall apply for revaluation within 30 daysfrom the date of declaration of the result by the University. 4. The candidate shall surrender the original statement ofmarks to the University along with his application forrevaluation. 5. 3. A candidate shall apply for revaluation within 30 daysfrom the date of declaration of the result by the University. 4. The candidate shall surrender the original statement ofmarks to the University along with his application forrevaluation. 5. Application for revaluation shall be in prescribed form (as shown in the Annexure-1 ). 6. The candidate shall remit a fee of Rs. 100/- per paper inwhich he seeks revaluation, subject to maximum of 3papers in one examination. For SC/st students feeprescribed is Rs. 50/- per paper. 7. The candidate shall give an undertaking that the resultawarded on his application for revaluation is binding onhim and that he shall not hold the University responsiblefor any consequences arising out of such revaluation (undertaking to be incorporated in the application ). 8. The Vice-Chancellor shall appoint the examiner forrevaluation from the panel of examiners prepared by therespective Boards of Studies. 9. The answer scripts taken for revaluation shall bereferred to the examinees) appointed for revaluationand to enable him to have an independent assessment ofthe answer scripts, the original markings in the innersheets and the front sheet should be suitably marked. 10. The rates of remuneration payable for revaluation workshall be as shown in Annexure No. 1. 11. The marks awarded by the Board/revaluator shall befinal and binding and the result of the candidate shallbe corrected accordingly. 12. The revaluation shall be arranged by the University officeunder the supervision of the Controller of Examinationsor shall be got done by at the place of the examinerby sending papers through post. 13. Revaluation shall ordinarily be done on the basis of thesame scheme of assessment already used for first valuation. 14. The result of the candidate shall be announced within40 days from the date of application for revaluation. In every exceptional cases, the Vice-Chancellor is empoweredto extend the date of announcement of theresult. 15. x xxxx x. 16. xxxxxx. " ( 4 ) STATUTE 30, Clause 12 provides that revaluation shall be arranged by the University office under the supervision of thecontroller of Examinations or shall be got done by and at theplace of the examiner by sending papers through post. Sub-rule13 provides that revaluation shall be done ordinarily on thebasis of the scheme of assessment already used for firstvaluation. It is further revealed that Clause 14 provides that theresult of the candidate shall be announced within 40 days fromthe date of application for revaluation. Sub-rule13 provides that revaluation shall be done ordinarily on thebasis of the scheme of assessment already used for firstvaluation. It is further revealed that Clause 14 provides that theresult of the candidate shall be announced within 40 days fromthe date of application for revaluation. Thus a perusal of Clauses12, 13 and 14 of the Statutes referred to above, governing thevaluation of answer scripts, very clearly reveal that there isprovision for revaluation and there is provision for revaluation ofpapers in theory. In my opinion, paper in Mathematics is theory. As to this, I put a question whether the paper in Mathematics isa theory. The standing counsel for the University fairly statedthat the paper of Mathematics is a theory paper. He furthersubmits that marks sheet also reveals that the subject ofmathematics is theory paper only and not practical. It is evidenton perusal of the marks sheet also leads to me to hold that thepaper of the subject of Mathematics is theory paper only and it isnot like the practical papers like Biology, Chemistry, etc. So, Iam of the opinion that the paper of Mathematics can be taken tobe one of theory papers. Nothing has been shown by the learnedcounsel for the University to the contrary that it is practicalpaper and the marks sheet having been placed in that respect. Icome to the conclusion that the Mathematics paper is a theorypaper and the petitioner has moved his application forrevaluation of his theory paper and that being so, the petitioneris entitled for revaluation of his answer scripts. His applicationfor revaluation has wrongly been rejected by the Universityauthorities. In this view of the matter, I hereby hold that theletter dated 17-2-1994, copy of which is Annexure-B, has beenissued under signatures of the Registrar (Evaluation) is on thebasis of misconception and it is on that basis the opposite partyhave refused to from the obligation of the revaluation of theanswer books of the petitioner for which he is and has beenentitled. ( 5 ) HAVING thus considered, I am of the opinion that the petitioner is entitled to the relief sought for in the writ petitionas there ia refusal or omission to perform the job of revaluationby University authorities. I find it just and proper that a writ ofmandamus be issued to the opposite parties directing them torevalue the answer books of the petitioner in respect of thesubject of Mathematics of B. Sc. I find it just and proper that a writ ofmandamus be issued to the opposite parties directing them torevalue the answer books of the petitioner in respect of thesubject of Mathematics of B. Sc. II Year Examination which hadbeen held in October 1993 and for which he had applied even. Ifthe petitioner's application for revaluation has been returned tothen, let petitioner refile that or a copy thereof or move freshapplication. ( 6 ) PETITIONER may apply and move that application within four weeks from today and there after within a period of six weeksfrom the date of service of the order and moving of application,the opposite party should after revaluing the papers declare thepetitioner's result on the basis of the revaluation. --- *** --- .