Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2015 DIGILAW 227 (MP)

Sakshi Bhardwaj v. State of Madhya Pradesh

2015-02-24

A.M.KHANWILKAR, R.S.JHA

body2015
ORDER : ” The petitioner submits that since her Advocate has expressed inability to appear before this Court today but in view of the urgency, she has decided to discharge her Advocate and argue the case herself. 2. The petitioner was informed that once the matter is argued on merits she may have to take the consequences of the arguments advanced before the Court and later on will not be permitted to approach the Court for re-hearing of the case on the ground that the Advocate engaged by her was not present or heard by the Court. She has accepted this condition. The petitioner is, therefore, permitted to discharge her Advocate and argue the petition in person. 3. Heard on admission. 4. The petitioner, who had appeared in the LL.B. 3rd Semester Examination held by the respondent-University in December 2013, has filed this petition being aggrieved by the result declared by the respondent-University and has prayed for re-evaluation of the answer sheets of the 3rd Semester Examination. 5. It is submitted by the petitioner that she is not satisfied by the evaluation of the answer sheets and in such circumstances, even though there is no provision for re-evaluation in the Ordinance of the University, the petitioner” s case may be taken up as a special case and her answer sheets be directed to be re-evaluated. The petitioner has stated that another student ' Megha Paliwal who had also appeared in the 3rd Semester Examination had not performed well but she has been given more marks and in such circumstances, she has prayed that this petition be allowed and the respondent University be directed to re-evaluate her answer sheets. 6. The learned counsel for the respondent-University per contra submits that there is no provision for re-evaluation of the answer-sheets in Ordinance No.111 of the University, which is relevant for the purpose of this petition and the relevant provision only provides for re-evaluation/scrutiny of marks. It is submitted that the petitioner” s representation in this regard was taken up and the marks of the petitioner were retotaled in which it was found that the petitioner was entitled to eight more marks. Accordingly, notification dated 17.01.2015 Annexure-R/1 had been issued whereunder the petitioner has been awarded 44 marks in place of 36 marks. It is submitted that the petitioner” s representation in this regard was taken up and the marks of the petitioner were retotaled in which it was found that the petitioner was entitled to eight more marks. Accordingly, notification dated 17.01.2015 Annexure-R/1 had been issued whereunder the petitioner has been awarded 44 marks in place of 36 marks. Further, in spite of awarding eight more marks, there was no change in her result and, therefore, the said no change was also notified in Annexure-R/1. 7. The learned counsel for the respondent-University further submits that as there is no provision of re-evaluation of the answer-sheets, therefore the prayer of the petitioner be rejected in view of the decision rendered by this Court in M.P. Board of Secondary Education and another v. Ku. Vinita Rupra, 1998 (1) MPLJ 595 and Pranshu Indurkhya (minor) v. State of M.P. and others, 2005 (2) MPHT 95 . The learned counsel for the respondent-University also submits that the petitioner has not cleared the 3rd semester examination and therefore in view of Sub-clauses (iv) and (viii) of paragraph 4 of Ordinance No.111 the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the 5th semester examination. 8. We have heard the petitioner as well as the learned counsel for respondent-University. We have also carefully gone through Clause No.(xxii) of paragraph 4 of Ordinance No.111. The said Clause clearly stipulates that the re-evaluation / scrutiny of marks of the answer books shall be allowed as per the provisions of relevant Ordinance of the University. We are of the considered opinion that a bare reading of the said Clause makes it clear that the reevaluation/ scrutiny permitted in the said clause only relates to marks of answer books and does not relate to re-evaluation of the entire answer-sheets. It is also clear from the stand of the respondent that under the provisions of this Clause they have undertaken re-evaluation and scrutiny of marks and have awarded 8 more marks. 9. In conclusion we are of the considered opinion that in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the cases of Ku. It is also clear from the stand of the respondent that under the provisions of this Clause they have undertaken re-evaluation and scrutiny of marks and have awarded 8 more marks. 9. In conclusion we are of the considered opinion that in view of the decision of this Court rendered in the cases of Ku. Vinita Rupra and Pranshu Indurkhya (minor) (supra) in the absence of a provision for re-evaluation of the entire answer paper coupled with the fact that no allegation of mala fides or tampering or of gross negligence resulting in injustice is made out, the prayer of the petitioner cannot be acceded to for revaluation of her answer sheet and is, accordingly, rejected. We are also of the considered opinion that in view of the prohibition contained in sub-clauses (iv) and (viii) of Ordinance No.111, the petitioner cannot be permitted to participate in the 5th semester examination as she has failed to pass the 3rd Semester Examination. 10. The petition, filed by the petitioner being meritless, is hereby dismissed. Petition dismissed.