Priya Mishra vs Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidyalaya

The present writ appeal has been preferred by the appellant/writ petitioner challenging the order dated 20.06.2022 passed in WPC No.312/2020, whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.

Brief facts of the case are that the appellant/writ petitioner was pursuing her LLM in the respondent University and has cleared 3 semesters and thereafter appeared in the 4th semester, the result of which was declared on 11.01.2017 and the appellant/writ petitioner secured aggregate of 54.75% marks, but feeling dissatisfied by the marks obtained, she moved an application for getting her answer sheet revalued on 23.01.2017 in accordance with the Ordinance and Regulations of the University, thereafter answer sheet of the appellant/writ petitioner was sent for revaluation and the revaluation result was declared on 24.08.2017 and there was 'no change' in the marks allotted to the appellant/writ petitioner. Subsequently, the appellant/ writ petitioner moved an application for supplying copy of the answer sheets of two papers of 4th Semester on 28.08.2017, upon which the answer sheets were supplied to her on 25.09.2017. After receiving the same, she again moved an application on 3/4-10-2017 seeking trivaluation of the said answer sheets, which was accepted by the respondent University and after trivaluation declared the result on 02.01.2018, in which also there was 'no change' in the marks obtained by the appellant/writ petitioner. Thereafter a writ petition bearing WPC No.312/2020 was filed before High Court seeking following relief;-

10.1 The Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the impugned action of the respondents for the kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.

10.2 The Hon’ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to revalue the answer-sheet of the Petitioner and make corrections, if any.

10.3 Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner.

10.4 Any other relief which this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.

The learned Single Judge after hearing both the parties vide impugned order dismissed writ petition filed by the petitioner, hence, petitioner in person/appellant herein has preferred instant appeal.

The appellant in person/writ petitioner submits that revaluation result has wrongly been declared by the respondent University, as no revaluation was done and only result of 'no change' was declared. There has also been inordinate delay on the part of the respondent in declaring the results of the revaluation and it took more than 8 months, whereas semester is only for 6 months' duration, but the said fact has been ignored by the learned Single Judge. It is further submitted by the appellant in person that Controller of the respondent University himself has admitted in his affidavit that when first application for revaluation was submitted by the appellant, then it was inadvertently sent to be examined by three examinors, whereas it ought to have been examined by two examinors. Thus, revaluation of answer sheets have not been done in accordance with Ordinance/Regulation. But this fact has been ignored by learned Single Judge, as such, the order passed by learned Single Judge is liable to be set aside and respondent University be directed to revalue answer sheet of the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondent submits that the order has rightly been passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition of the appellant, as she applied for revaluation of her answer sheets which was got done and even on her own application, her answer sheet was trivalued by examinors of outside State, despite that ‘no change’ was found in her marks. Dissatisfied by the same, the appellant filed writ petition after about more than two years of declaration of result of trivaluation which was declared on 02.01.2018. As such, no case is made out in favour of the appellant to again revaluate her answer sheets when the same has been done twice. Hence, the writ appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed.

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record carefully.

The learned Single Judge vide Order dated 20.06.2022 passed in WPC No.312/2022 dismissed the writ petition filed by the appellant/writ petitioner, observing in paras 6 to 9 as under:-

“6. Contention of the petitioner was that firstly there has been an inordinate delay on the part of the respondents in declaring the results of revaluation wherein it took more than 8 months by the respondents for declaring the results on revaluation particularly when semester is only of six months duration. By the time the results were declared, the next semester was also commenced and therefore they have acted in an arbitrary manner. Therefore, the contention of the petitioner is that the revaluation in fact was not done. The respondents had shown the revaluation to have been got done by three examiners which is not the procedure under the respondents and that three examiners examined the answer sheets only in the course of trivaluation and therefore respondents themselves are not sure whether they had conducted the revaluation or trivaluation of the petitioner at the first instance.

This Court had directed the respondents to file an affidavit in respect of the entire proceeding vide order dated 22.09.2021. In compliance of the said order Shri Praveen Kumar Pandey, Controller of the examination of the respondent University has filed an affidavit dated 23.10.2021. In the affidavit the Controller of the Examination has in very categorical terms submitted that when the first application for revaluation was submitted by the petitioner on 23.01.2017 it was inadvertently sent to be examined by three examiners. All three examiners were people who were from outside the jurisdiction of the respondent University. Contention of the deponent the Controller of the Examination is that the revaluation is normally done by two examiners outside the jurisdiction of the respondent University but inadvertently when it was sent for revaluation it was forwarded to three examiners and three examiners have examined the answer sheets of the petitioner. Further in terms of the findings of three examiners, no change in the results were found or made out. Contention of the respondent in this regard is that this is more in advantage of the petitioner as the answer sheets have been examined by three examiners instead of two.

Another fact which is reflected from the perusal of the records is that when the petitioner applied for trivaluation on 3/4.10.2017 the answer sheets of the petitioner was sent to examiners outside the State of Chhattisgarh as is evident from the contents of paragraph 6 of the affidavit filed by the deponent, the Controller of Examination. The three examiners from outside State of Chhattisgarh also gave their valuation separately. However, there was no change detected in the marks which were allotted at the first instance. Nothing strong had been brought on record to disbelieve the statement of the Controller of Examination in his affidavit. On perusal of the substantive relief that petitioner seeks for undoubtedly the answer sheets of the petitioner’s 4th semester of LLM Course, the results of which were declared on 11.01.2017 was in fact got subjected to revaluation as also trivaluation. The results of which were declared on 24.08.2017 & 02.01.2018 respectively.

Given the fact that answer sheets of the petitioner have been subjected to revaluation and trivaluation in terms of the Ordinance and Regulations governing the field. The relief sought for by the petitioner cannot be further accepted or acceded to exercising the Writ jurisdiction of this Court. More particularly, when the Ordinance and Regulations do not provide for such a mechanism. Moreover, if such relief have to be acceded then it would become a never ending saga not just a case of the petitioner but also for all other students who were not satisfied with the valuation of the answer scripts in respect of the examination in which they participated and where they have got the answer scripts revalued and trivalued in terms of the regulations. This Court does not find any strong case made out by the petitioner calling for an interference or Writ to be issued to the respondents at this juncture. The writ petition accordingly fails and stands rejected.”

Perusal of the record as well as the order passed by the learned Single Judge would transpire that on the application filed by the writ petitioner her answer sheets were revalued twice. Although at the first instance, her answer sheets would have to be revalued by two examinors instead thereof it had revalued by three examinors, but the petitioner has not demonstrated anything that due to aforesaid act any prejudice was caused to her. Subsequently, on being application filed by her, her answer sheets were trivalued that too by three examinors. It is also revealed from the record that despite revaluation of the answer sheet twice, marks was not found to be changed of the appellant.

Although first revaluation was got done after about 08 months from the filing of the application by the appellant, but also in this regard, she could not succeed to bring any cogent ground to believe that due to alleged delay any injustice was done with her.

If Ordinance or Regulations of the University do not permit third time revaluation of the answer sheets, then only on the ground of some mistakes committed by respondent, which does not result into any statutory loss to the appellant, hence, we do not find any ground to interfere with impugned order passed by learned Single Judge.

Accordingly, this writ petition is dismissed.