JUDGMENT The petitioner appeared in B.Com Part I Examination held by Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, Jabalpur, in the year 1995, in which examination, as per Annexure P/1 Mark-sheet issued to him, dated 3.7.95, he was declared to have failed in two papers, - one of "Micro Economics" and the other of "Banking Law and Practice". He applied for revaluation of the answer books relating to the above two subjects. The revaluation was conducted by the revaluers and after revaluation, as the result of the petitioner remained unchanged he could not be declared passed. He was informed accordingly vide Annexure P/2. Not satisfied with this, the petitioner has approached this Court by means of this petition, which is being finally disposed of after hearing the learned counsel for the parties, as counter affidavit has been filed. The short question for consideration is whether, according to the provisions of clause 8 of the Ordinance 71 of the Rani Durgawati Vishwavidyalaya, the petitioner would have been declared passed or failed. Relevant provision clause 8 of the Ordinance 71 is as extracted below: " 8. If the marks awarded in the paper by any of the two examiners varies from the marks given by the original examiner by more than 10% of the maximum marks in the paper, the average of the marks awarded by two of the examiners, the original examiner and the two revaluers and nearest to each other will be taken to represent the correct valuation. This average of marks will be awarded to the candidate for the revision of his result. Provided that subject to the condition that at least one of the variations from the original marks is more than 10% of the maximum marks in the paper, if two differences in marks allotted by the three examiners are equal, the two marks to the best advantage of the candidate shall be taken into account for arriving at the correct valuation. Provided further that if the average of the marks thus arrived at is lesser than the original marks, the original marks will not be reduced and the result shall remain unchanged. The result of revaluation shall be communicated to the candidate, even if there is no change in the marks." The petitioner, in the paper' 'Micro Economics" initially obtained 23 marks and in the paper "Banking Law and Practice" he obtained 30 marks. The result of revaluation shall be communicated to the candidate, even if there is no change in the marks." The petitioner, in the paper' 'Micro Economics" initially obtained 23 marks and in the paper "Banking Law and Practice" he obtained 30 marks. Thus, he secured 53 marks in both the papers, in total. In the revaluation, in the paper "Micro Economics" the first revaluer awarded him 26 marks and the second revaluer awarded him 29 marks. As per the requirement of Clause 8 of the aforesaid Ordinance, if the marks awarded in the paper by any of the two revaluers varies from the marks given by the original valuer by more than 10% of the maximum marks in the paper, the average of the marks awarded by the two revaluers, the origina1 valuer and the revaluers, the nearest to eacJ1 other will be taken for correct valuation for the revision of the result of the candidate. The difference between the marks given by the original valuer and the first revaluer comes to 3 and the difference between the first revaluer and the second revaluer comes to 3 and thus, the average of it being taken as 3, the marks, after revaluation in this paper' 'Micro Economics" comes to be 23 + 3 = 26. Similarly, in the paper "Banking Law & Practice", the first revaluer awarded him 30 marks and the second revaluer awarded him 38 marks and the difference between the marks given by the original valuer and first revaluer comes to 0 and the difference between the marks given by first revaluer and the second revaluer comes to 8 and the average of it being taken as 4, the total marks obtained by him on revaluation comes to 30 + 4 = 34 only. Thus, the total marks in both the papers on revaluation, come to be 60 and the minimum passing marks required for declaring the petitioner to be passed are 66. The petitioner has thus not secured even the minimum pass marks on revaluation, as per the requirement of law. In view of the above, the petition fails and is dismissed. No order as to costs.