Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2009 DIGILAW 2530 (RAJ)

Mahendra Singh v. University of Rajasthan

2009-12-14

GOPAL KRISHAN VYAS

body2009
JUDGMENT 1. - In this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for direction to the respondents that his copy of examination of the theory paper of Mathematics-III of B.E., III Semester, 2008may be rechecked and re-evaluated. Further, it is prayed that respondents may be directed to show the actual marks and marks-sheet of the petitioner and he may be declared passed. 2. According to facts of the case, the petitioner was admitted in the B.E. Course in Sribalaji Engineering College, Bannad Road, Jaipur and in the year 2005 petitioner appeared in the III Semester, B.E.Examination, in which, he was declared failed in 3 papers viz., Str.Of Mat. & Meach. of Struc. I, Mathematics- III and Object Oriented Programming and in the paper of Mathematics-III he obtained marks 14 in tests and 8 in final, total 22. The petitioner has placed on record marks-sheet Annex-1 so issued for the said semester examination. 3. In the second attempt, he was declared failed in 2 papers and in the paper of Mathematics-III he obtained marks 16 in tests and 18in final, total 34 marks. Thereafter, again, in the year 2006, petitioner appeared in 2 papers in third attempt; but, again, he was declared failed in the paper of Mathematics-III and his marks in the said paper were again shown the same as of second attempt i.e., 16 in tests and18 in the examination, total 34 marks. 4. As per the petitioner, he made hard work for the study of Mathematics-III and appeared in the fourth attempt; but, he received marks-sheet and was shocked to see that he again secured the same marks i.e. 16 and18 respectively in test and theory. In the year 2009, while he appeared for the fifth attempt, he was assured that this time he will get more than 50 marks; but, again, he was declared unsuccessful and obtained the same marks i.e., 34. 5. In the above facts and circumstances, the petitioner has preferred writ petition before this Court and prayed that due to inaction, omission and carelessness of the respondents, the petitioner has suffered hardships and is losing his valuable career. The action of the respondents is arbitrary and unconstitutional because for five attempts he appeared in the examination but he was declared unsuccessful and in four attempt she successively obtained exact 34 marks as per valuation of the examiner which is beyond imagination. The action of the respondents is arbitrary and unconstitutional because for five attempts he appeared in the examination but he was declared unsuccessful and in four attempt she successively obtained exact 34 marks as per valuation of the examiner which is beyond imagination. The petitioner has prayed in this writ petition that result may be summoned and rechecking and revaluation may be ordered in his case. 6. Vide order dated 15.06.2009, the University counsel was directed to produce the record and answer-book of the petitioner for the subject Mathematics-III for the years 2005, 2006, 2007 and 2008. In compliance of the said order, Controller of Examination of the respondent University was present in person on 17.09.2009 with the answer book of the year2009 and submitted that answer-books of other years were not available.In view of this fact, the respondent was directed to file affidavit to the effect that the answer books of the earlier years of the petitioner for paper Mathematics-III of the years January 2008, December 2006,December 2005 and December 2003 are not available. On 30.09.2009,affidavit was filed which is on record, in which, it is specifically stated that answer-sheets of the relevant years for the subject Mathematics III are not available with the respondent University and same have been destroyed in accordance with the provisions in this regard. 7. I have perused the entire pleadings of the case.Although it is very strange that in four attempts in which the petitioner appeared for the subject Mathematics III he secured exact 34 marks each time, out of which, 16 for test,and 18 in theory; but, in my opinion, no inquiry can be ordered while exercising jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India because the petitioner himself appeared for five times and after appearing in the year 2009 he has preferred this writ petition before this Court; meaning thereby, he is satisfied with the results of the earlier years. In this view of the matter upon perusing the reply, for the sake of maintaining academic standards and, so also, status of the University, there does not emergency ground for issuing mandamus to the respondent University for rechecking or re-evaluating answer-books. 8. In this view of the matter upon perusing the reply, for the sake of maintaining academic standards and, so also, status of the University, there does not emergency ground for issuing mandamus to the respondent University for rechecking or re-evaluating answer-books. 8. However, in the peculiar circumstances of this case, it requires to be observed that the petitioner is entitled for one last chance to appear in the paper of Mathematics-III because his whole career is at stake and, admittedly the answer- books of the previous years which were called by this Court were destroyed and not produced before this Court for perusal. 9. In this view of the matter, the University authorities are here by directed to grant one last opportunity to the petitioner to appear in the Mathematics-III paper at the next semester examination, wherein,if the petitioner succeeds he may be awarded degree. With aforesaid direction/observation, this writ petition is disposed of. 10. There shall, however, be no order as to costs.Order accordingly. *******