S BHASKAR Vs. GULBARGA UNIVERSITY GULBARGA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this petition, the petitioner has sought for writ of certiorariquashing the endorsement dated 17-2-1994 bearing No.GUG/EXAM/B.Sc. 11/93-94/10773 issued by the respondent-University copy of which Annexure-B to the writ petition to theeffect that 'there is no provision of revaluation of papers, hence,the application is returned herewith'. The petitioner has furtherprayed for the issuance of writ of mandamus to respondent torevalue the petitioner's Mathematics paper of B.Sc. II YearExamination held in October, 1993. The facts of the case in briefare: that the petitioner appeared in II Year B.Sc. Examinationconducted by the respondent-University in October 1993 and thepetitioner appeared in all the five papers. He scored good marksin other papers but failed in the subject of Mathematics scoring31 marks out of 150 in which the minimum marks prescribed is52. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had done well inall the five subjects but failed in the subject of Mathematics. Thepetitioner annexed his marks sheet dated 16-12-1993 asAnnexure-B. The petitioner further submits that he wasconfident of scoring pass marks and so applied for revaluation ofthe said paper by remitting the necessary fee with anapplication, dated 15-1-1994. According to the petitioner, no;revaluation has been done and his application has been returnedvide Annexure-B dated 17-2-1994 with an observation by theUniversity authorities that there is no provision for revaluationand so application is returned. Having felt aggrieved, thepetitioner has filed this petition challenging the validity of theprovisions and the statutes of the University. According to thestatute, the petitioner is entitled for revaluation of the -paper.University authorities are bound to revalue the papers providedapplication is made with the prayer for revaluation and -depositing of prescribed fee for that purpose within thestipulated period. The petitioner submits that there is provisionfor revaluation of papers by filing the written answer scripts.But only exception is in respect of cases where there is doubleevaluation of the same subject.

(2.) Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University submits that with regard to the filing of the counter-aindavit,that he has not filed the same on account of the prevailingstatute. He does not deny the fact that the petitioner hadappeared in B.Sc. II Year Examination and he has failed in onesubject thereunder. He said that there is no denial of the factthat the petitioner had appeared for B.Sc. II Year Examinationin October 1993 and has passed in all subjects other thanMathematics and failed in the subject of Mathematics. Thesefacts being admitted, the petitioner had appeared for B.Sc. II,Year Examination in October 1993 and he had failed in thepaper of Mathematics as well that he had applied for revaluationand his application has been rejected on the ground that there isno provision for revaluation. The only question for this Court toconsider is whether there is any provision in the Act or anystatutes pertaining to revaluation and as to time limit to claimrevaluation.

(3.) I have heard Sri G.R. Gurumath, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri S.S. Koti, learned counsel on behalf ofthe University. Learned counsel for the petitioner contends thatthere is a provision for revaluation under Statute 30 of theUniversity. Statute 30 of the University provides for revaluationand according to that provision there shall be provision forrevaluation and the revaluation of the answer scripts at allstages' of University Examination except in respect of such caseswhere system of double evaluation is already in existence in thatcases subject to some exceptions provided.Statute '30' of the University reads and is being quotedhereunder in extenso ;"Statute 30 : Statute Governing Revaluation of answerscripts :There shall be a provision for revaluation of valuedwritten answer scripts at any of the University Examinations, excepting where there is double valuationsubject to the following: