Tiyasha Ghosh vs The Registrar (Evaluation), Visvesvaraya Technological University, Belgaum

N.K. Patil, J.—The appellant/party-in-person questioning the correctness or otherwise of the order impugned passed by the learned Single Judge, in Writ Petition No. 19387/2014(EDN.-EX) dated 25th April 2014, has presented this writ appeal.

In the writ petition, the appellant/party-in-person had sought for a direction to the respondent/University to consider the representation dated 1st March 2014 vide Annexure D to the order for the revaluation of the answer script of the appellant/party-in-person, in respect of Engineering Mathematics and semester with Registration No. 1AM11CS091. The said writ petition had come up for consideration before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge rejected the writ petition, observing that question of seeking further revaluation will not arise. Being aggrieved by the said order of the learned Single Judge, appellant/party-in-person has presented this writ appeal, seeking appropriate reliefs, as stated supra.

The grievance of the appellant/party-in-person is that, she is a student of AMC Engineering college, Bangalore, studying in IV semester and she joined the said College during the academic year 2011-12 in CSE branch and appeared for the II semester Examination in Engineering Mathematics-2 (10MA921) with Registration No. 1AM11CS091 for the first attempt during July 2012 and in the said Examination, she secured 22 marks and she again appeared for the said Examination for the second attempt during April 2013, when she secured 35 marks in the said subject. Not being satisfied with the marks awarded, she applied for revaluation of the answer scripts and after revaluation, she secured only 35 marks in the said subject. She again appeared for the Examination in the said subject during July 2013 for the third time, when she secured 25 marks and therefore, not being satisfied she applied for revaluation in which, she secured 26 marks in the said subject after revaluation. She once again appeared for the Examination in the said subject for the fourth time during January 2014 in which, she secured 27 marks at the first valuation and being not satisfied with the marks awarded to her, she applied for revaluation and after revaluation, she secured 35 marks in the said subject.

It is the further case of the appellant/party-in-person that, she was expecting more than 50 marks in the Engineering Mathematics-2 which she had taken during January 2014 and not being satisfied with the marks awarded in the first valuation, and in the revaluation, she approached the Principal of the College, by submitting a representation dated 1st March 2014, stating that she should have got more than 50 marks for the answers she had written and as such requested the Principal of the College to send a letter to the respondent/University for revaluation of her answer script. Accordingly, the Principal of the College forwarded the representation submitted by the appellant/party-in-person requesting to evaluate the revalued answer script of the appellant/party-in-person, as per her representation dated 1st March 2014. Her request was declined on the ground that there is no provision for seeking such evaluation of revalued answer scripts. Not being satisfied with the same, she approached the learned Single Judge by presenting a writ petition before the learned Single Judge and the learned Single Judge, after hearing the counsel appearing for the appellant herein, rejected the writ petition. Not being further satisfied with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, appellant/party-in-person has presented this writ appeal seeking the aforementioned reliefs.

We have heard appellant/party-in-person, for quite some time and gone through the grounds urged in the writ appeal carefully and also the order passed by the learned Single Judge. It is manifest on the face of the same that, there is no error or material irregularity as such committed by the learned Single Judge, resulting in any miscarriage of justice. It can be seen that the learned Single Judge has specifically observed that, where on a revaluation, if the difference between the original valuation and the revaluation is in excess of ''15'' marks, then, it is necessary that the entire paper be revalued by a third valuer. In the case on hand, the difference is only ''8'' marks. Therefore, the question of third valuation does not arise. When there is no provision for the same under the Regulations of the University, the relief sought for by the appellant/party-in-person cannot be entertained. The reasoning given by learned Single Judge for rejecting the prayer of the appellant/party-in-person is well founded and it does not call for interference by this Court. Hence, the writ appeal filed by appellant/party-in-person is liable to be dismissed as devoid of merit. Accordingly it is dismissed.

In view of dismissal of appeal on merits, I.A. No. 2/2014 does not survive for consideration and is accordingly, disposed of as having become infructuous.