AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Challenging the award of less marks in the subject of Pharmaceutical Jurisprudence in the examination conducted in the year 2006, petitioner has filed this writ petition. Petitioner was a student of Swami Vivekanand College of Pharmacy, Bhopal and was prosecuting a course i.e. diploma in Pharmacy. The petitioner appeared in the final examination which was conducted in March-April 2006 and in the said examination, in the subject of Pharmaceutical Jurisprudence petitioner received two marks. Inter alia contending that the marks received by the petitioner is on the lower side, his answer sheet have not been valued properly in the subject in question, a writ petition was filed before this Court being W.P. No. 11494/2009 and a Division Bench of this Court vide Annexure P-1 on 13.11.2009 directed the university to consider the case of petitioner for grant of grace marks, in case permissible under law, and to consider his representation in accordance to law.
Thereafter, the petitioner claims that he already applied for grant of answer-sheet under the Right To Information Act, the same is filed along with I.A. No. 9675/2011, and now it is the case of petitioner in this writ petition that the answer sheet received by him under the RTI Act does indicate that his answers-sheet has not been properly valued, certain questions have not been properly corrected, marks have not been granted properly and accordingly contending that the answer sheet should be revalued by the independent valuers, prayer made is that an appropriate orders be issued for revaluation of answer sheet.
That apart, in support of the aforesaid prayer, petitioner has indicated that he has got the answer-sheet revalued from two independent teachers namely one Shri Arvind Kumar Tiwari and one Shri Ramikant Tripathi, who are teachers in S.V. College and both these valuers opined that petitioner has got 46 marks out of 80. Accordingly, contending that petitioner has given reasonable justification for getting the answer-sheet revalued prayer made is that directions be issued for revaluation of answer-sheet by independent valuers or to accept the revaluation done by the petitioner and award the marks.
Respondents have filed a detailed reply and during the course of hearing today Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel appearing for University points out that taking note of controversy involved in the matter, during the pendency of writ petition the answer-sheet of petitioner was sent to two independent valuers for revaluation, they are one Smt. Monika Arora and one Dr. Sanghvi, both of them have revalued the answer-sheet and have given a report according to which Smt. Monika Arora has awarded six marks to the petitioner and Dr. Sanghvi has awarded ten marks. Shri Paritosh Gupta, learned counsel, produced the report submitted by two valuers. It is, therefore, clear that during the pendency of the writ petition the University itself with a view to reconcile the situation has kept answer-sheet revalued by two independent valuers and the report of the two independent valuers shows that there is no irregularity in awarding marks to the petitioner and petitioner fails in the subject in question.
As far as revaluation done by the petitioner is concerned, the two teachers, who has revalued petitioner''s answer-sheet are the same teachers who are teaching in the S.V. College i.e. respondent No. 2 institute where petitioner is studying and in the absence of any material to show the revaluation undertaken by university is unsustainable, tented with mala fide or not proper in accordance with law, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. It is well settled principle of law that in the absence of any statutory provisions, rules or regulations contemplate a provision for revaluation, of the same cannot be ordered in writ petition. In this regard, law laid down in the case of Ku. Neha Indurkhya Vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, so also in the case of Pranshu Indurkhya Vs. State of M.P. and Others, may be taken note of.
That apart, in the present case during the pendency of the writ petition, in its own wisdom the university has got the answer-sheet revalued through two different valuers and there is nothing to show that this revaluation done is not proper. That apart, in the absence of any malafide or bias being attributed to any authority of the university and in the absence of any material to show that the act of university is tented with malafide or is contrary to a statutory provision, we see no reason to interfere into the matter. Accordingly, finding the petition to be misconstrued, the same is dismissed. No order as to costs.