JUDGMENT : BIREN VAISHNAV, J. 1. This Letters Patent Appeal has been filed by the appellant who was the original petitioner before the learned Single Judge. By the oral order dated 18.3.2019, the learned Single Judge dismissed the petition holding that there is no explanation coming forth from the petitioner as to why the petitioner did not challenge the action of the university at the relevant time and has challenged the same after almost six years. 2. The prayer in the petition before the learned Single Judge reads as under: “8(b) Your Lordships may be pleased to issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction directing the respondent Gujarat University to immediately correct the mark-sheet of the petitioner of Semester -I and Semester – II by giving effect of the correct internal marks as per the record of the college.” 3. The facts in brief are as under: 3.1. The case of the petitioner – appellant before this Court was that he got admission in the Geology Department of the respondent No.3 – College. He appeared in Semester I examination in September, 2011 and in the second Semester in March, 2012. According to the petitioner, the college had sent the internal marks on time to the university. While making the result, the university awarded marks as per its own wish. According to the petitioner, instead of 22, 21, 21 and 21 marks in the internal examination, the university had through oversight given 12, 11, 11 and 11 marks respectively. 3.2. In the second Semester also, according to the petitioner, the University gave 12, 11, 11 and 11 marks instead of 22, 21, 21 and 21 respectively. The College had requested for a change on 23.8.2012. According to the petitioner, Semester III mark sheet was correct. Though the college wrote on 11.7.2018 for correction of the mark sheet of Semester 1 and 2, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court, as the University did not correct the marks. 4. On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge by the judgment under challenge dismissed the petition. 5. Though the college wrote on 11.7.2018 for correction of the mark sheet of Semester 1 and 2, the petitioner was constrained to approach this Court, as the University did not correct the marks. 4. On perusal of the affidavit-in-reply filed before the learned Single Judge, the learned Single Judge by the judgment under challenge dismissed the petition. 5. On 29.7.2021, this Court had requested the counsel for the university to produce the original record relating to the internal marks forwarded by the college to the university and the 1st and 2nd semesters of 2011-12 examination of the appellant which we have perused. We have also perused the further affidavit filed on behalf of the Gujarat University dated 4.8.2021. 6. Mr. Sudhanshu Jha, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the issue of correction of marks could not be said to be belated. After the letter dated 23.8.2012, the petitioner had repeatedly made representations in the year 2014, 2015, 2016 and in fact the college had in its letter dated 10.7.2018 reminded the Director of Examinations of the University for correction of marks in Semester 1 and 2. Mr. Jha would submit that in the internal marks which were displayed by the university, the discrepancy was well explained by the college in the letter. 7. Mr. S.N. Shelat, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Mr. Vikas V. Nair, learned advocate for the respondent – university drew the attention of the Court to the affidavit filed by it before the learned Single Judge as well as the further affidavit filed in this appeal. He would submit that the petitioner had appeared in the first semester examination for which a mark sheet was issued on 23.3.2012 wherein the appellant had been declared as failed. On a request made by the College in the year 2012, a fresh mark sheet for Semester I was issued on 24.7.2013 with the corrections, as requested. This exercise was undertaken as requested by the college for four other students also. 7.1. The appellant appeared in the 2nd semester examination in May, 2012. The appellant had failed in the 2nd semester and no request for a change of marks was made. In – fact, the appellant appeared as a repeater in November, 2012 and was declared passed in a result declared on 8.3.2013. 7.1. The appellant appeared in the 2nd semester examination in May, 2012. The appellant had failed in the 2nd semester and no request for a change of marks was made. In – fact, the appellant appeared as a repeater in November, 2012 and was declared passed in a result declared on 8.3.2013. Even for the 3rd Semester, in the year 2013 on a request made by the appellant on 30.3.2013, the university corrected the result. 7.2. In other words, according to Mr. Shelat despite the appellant having appeared in the 1st Semester and having had the benefit of a corrected mark sheet on 24.3.2013, not satisfied with such corrected mark sheet, only came forward for a recorrection in the year 2018. The letter dated 10.7.2018 relied upon by the petitioner – appellant so written by the college in which a reference is made to the letter dated 23.8.2012 is a clear after thought. It was only by the letter dated 10.7.2018 that the college produced the communication of 23.8.2012 also for which according to the college, it has no records and the letter of 2012 does not bear any stand. 8. Having considered the submissions made by the learned advocates for the respective parties, and having perused the original records that was placed before us for consideration, on the basis a comparative result produced by the university before this Court by way of table, it is evident that for the result of the 1st Semester declared on 23.3.2012, a fresh mark sheet correcting the 1st semester result was given on 24.7.2013 which the petitioner accepted without demur. The tabular form is reproduced hereunder: Subject Before Correction After Correction GEO 401 11 11 GEO 402 5 12 GEO 403 3 11 GEO 404 3 11 GEO 405 14 14 GEO 406 6 14 Result Fail Pass Date of Issue 23-March 2012 24- July 2013 8.1. What is also evident is that this exercise of correction was undertaken not only for the petitioner but for other four students also. 9. As far as contention of Shri Jha of the College having written a letter on 23.8.2012 which the college appears to have annexed with the letter of 10.7.2018, on perusal of the original record, we do not find a copy of the letter and even the one which is produced does not appear any stamp or endorsement of receipt of such communication. The letter’s veracity and existence is doubtful, particularly when the college itself in its letter dated 10.7.2018 communicates that the records are lost. The stand of the petitioner – appellant in producing the letter of 10.7.2018 is therefore an after-thought to resurrect a stale issue. If the petitioner had sought correction of the 3rd Semester M.Sc mark sheet in the year 2013, there is no reason why prior to the 3rd Semester examination, the petitioner could not have sought re-correction of the 2nd semester and instead waited five years after the 3rd Semester examination was also over. 10. We have perused the further affidavit filed by the university which is so explained in the tabular form. The same reads as under: “7. It is now important to explain the approach of the appellant at this stage before this Honorable Court to claim extra marks by citing the lapse on the part of College or University. The request regarding the marks and the marks obtained are as under: Subject Obtained Marks Correction Sought Difference First Semester Geo-401 11 21 10 Geo-402 12 22 10 Geo-403 11 21 10 Geo-404 11 21 10 Geo-405 14 No change sought - Geo-406 14 No change sought - Difference in Total of First Semester– 40 Marks Second Semester Geo-407 12 22 10 Geo-408 11 21 10 Geo-409 11 21 10 Geo-410 11 21 10 Geo-411 15 No change sought - Geo-412 14 No change sought - Difference in Total of Second Semester – 40 Marks 11. Reading of the aforesaid explanation would indicate that if at a belated stage, the appellant’s request was to be accepted, it would result in variation of marks of the 1st Semester and the 2nd Semester by 40 marks each. In the 1st Semester, if the request was to be entertained, the appellant would get 307 marks against the actual obtained of 267. Even in the 3rd Semester, if the request was accepted, the 2nd Semester would have 304 as total marks instead of actually obtained marks of 264. 12. The resultant effect would be as under: Semester Total Obtained Correction Sought Sem-I 267 307 Sem-II 264 304 Sem-III 342 342 Sem-IV 373 373 Total Obtained 1246/2400 1326/2400 CGP 498.40 530.4 CGPA 5.19 5.53 The CGP and CGPA would go upto 530.4 and 5.53 respectively. 12. The resultant effect would be as under: Semester Total Obtained Correction Sought Sem-I 267 307 Sem-II 264 304 Sem-III 342 342 Sem-IV 373 373 Total Obtained 1246/2400 1326/2400 CGP 498.40 530.4 CGPA 5.19 5.53 The CGP and CGPA would go upto 530.4 and 5.53 respectively. The effort of the appellant is clearly an attempt to put the clock back with a purpose to get himself qualified for examinations by crossing the barrier of 55%. 13. For the reasons as aforesaid, we, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the order of the learned Single Judge and the appeal deserves to be dismissed and accordingly, the same is dismissed. 14. In view of dismissal of the main matter, connected Civil Application also stands disposed of. 15. The original records as per order dated 9.8.2021 are returned to the learned counsel appearing for the University.