MOHD IDRISH Vs. CHHATRAPATI SAHUJI MAHARAJ UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the supplementary-affidavit which has been filed today. The petitioner appeared in the B.Ed. examination of 2011 and the contention of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that the respondents have either not evaluated the answer book of the petitioner or have wrongly proceeded to get it evaluated without following the norms prescribed.

(2.) The petitioner applied under the Right to Information Act and the following allegations have been made in paras 18, 19 and 20 of the writ petition:

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondent university ought to have taken action for getting the answer books evaluated in accordance with law and the norms provided for the same but having failed to get any relief the petitioner approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution.