Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 506 (RAJ)

SHEKHAR SHARMA v. UNIVERSITY OF RAJASTHAN

2017-02-13

MOHAMMAD RAFIQ

body2017
ORDER : MOHAMMAD RAFIQ, J. 1. This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the prayer that the respondent be directed for revaluation of petitioner's answer sheet of the Penology subject without any fees and declare the result within three weeks. 2. Facts of the case are that the petitioner is the student of University of Rajasthan and enrolled in the course of the Post Graduate Diploma in Criminology (DCL). He appeared in the annual exams of the aforesaid course in six subjects, which were held from 16.05.2016 to 18.06.2016. The respondent-University published the result of the aforesaid exam on 21.07.2016, but the marks sheet was issued on 28.07.2016. 3. The petitioner, who is appearing in person, submitted that he was continuously sick from 16.07.2016 to 16.08.2016 due to seasonal diseases. The petitioner collected original marks sheet from the Department of Law, University of Rajasthan in the first week of August, 2016 and came to learn that he passed in five subjects out of 6, but failed in the subject of Penology wherein he scored 16 marks out of 100 marks. Dissatisfied with the result, the petitioner attempted to apply for revaluation on the University's website on 11.08.2016, but system of the respondent-University did not provide for the option of selecting the course Diploma in Criminology. In these circumstances, the petitioner submitted a written complaint to the Vice Chancellor of the University on 12.08.2016. However, the Deputy Registrar(Revaluation) vide letter dated 10.09.2016 replied to the petitioner that as per revaluation rules, application for revaluation could be made only within 15 days from the date of issuance of marks sheet and, therefore, application filed by the petitioner was liable to be rejected. 4. The petitioner referred to the mark sheet dated 28.07.2016(Annexure-3) in this behalf and submitted that this marks sheet is dated 21.07.2016, but the date of issuance indicated therein is 28.07.2016. In Clause 4 of the Note, it is stated that application for scrutiny of marks and/or revaluation of answer-books as permissible under the rules should be sent to the Deputy Registrar(Secrecy) on the prescribed form along with the requisite fee within 30 days from the date of declaration of result. In Clause 4 of the Note, it is stated that application for scrutiny of marks and/or revaluation of answer-books as permissible under the rules should be sent to the Deputy Registrar(Secrecy) on the prescribed form along with the requisite fee within 30 days from the date of declaration of result. The petitioner argued that the respondent-University is taking that stand relying on notification No. 13 dated 07.11.2016 issued by the Registrar of the University vide which period of 30 days for submitting application for revaluation was reduced to 15 days. As per the practice of the University so far, even if the period of 30 days is counted from the date of issuance of mark sheet to the petitioner, i.e. 28.07.2016, said period should be taken as 28.08.2016. Even then, the petitioner submitted written application to the Vice Chancellor of the University well in time on 12.08.2016 and reduced period of 15 days introduced vide notification dated 07.11.2016 cannot be applied to the case of the petitioner because this notification was issued not only after the petitioner submitted application for revaluation, but even after filing of present writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the respondent-University opposed the writ petition and submitted that now it would be too late to direct revaluation of the answer sheet of the petitioner. He submitted that regular examinations have again approached and if the petitioner wishes, he can appear in the aforesaid subject again. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material on record, this Court finds that since notification dated 07.11.2016 was issued much after declaration of result of the petitioner and even after filing of present writ petition by the petitioner, therefore, it cannot be retrospectively applied to the case of the petitioner. In the case of petitioner, originally prescribed period of 30 days is indicated in Clause 4 of Note given in the marks sheet of the petitioner (Annexure-3) and counting that period from either of the two dates, i.e. 21.07.2016, date of declaration of result or 28.07.2016, date of issuance of marks sheet, the petitioner submitted application well within time to the Vice Chancellor, i.e. on 12.08.2016. The petitioner in that application categorically stated that the petitioner attempted to apply for revaluation on the University's website on 11.08.2016, but system of the respondent-University did not provide for the option of selecting the course Diploma in Criminology. 7. The petitioner in that application categorically stated that the petitioner attempted to apply for revaluation on the University's website on 11.08.2016, but system of the respondent-University did not provide for the option of selecting the course Diploma in Criminology. 7. In these circumstances, the writ petition deserves to succeed and the same is accordingly allowed. The respondent is directed to revaluate the petitioner's answer sheet of the Penology subject on payment of prescribe revaluation fees on hard copy and declare result of the same within three weeks from the date copy of this order is produced before the respondent. 8. Stay application stands disposed off.