PRIYA SINGH Vs. RAJIV GANDHI PROUDYOGIKI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) None appears for the respondents even though represented by counsel and time granted since 29.11.2013 to file reply. Shri Tiwari submits that as the respondents are not filing any reply, matter be heard in view of the specific directions issued by this Court on 13.1.2014.

(2.) Keeping in view the aforesaid, the matter is being heard and orders are being passed after perusal of the records. Petitioner herein was a student who appeared in the Fourth Semester Examination conducted by Rajiv Gandhi Proudyogiki Vishwavidyalaya, for B Pharmacy Course. Petitioner appeared in the 4th Semester Examination conducted sometime in April -May, 2013 and according to the petitioner she is a meritorious student and had received very good marks throughout and in two of the papers Pharmaceutics IV (Pharmaceutical Engineering II), subject Code PY401; and Pharmaceutical Analysis I, subject Code PY403, in the marksheet allotted to the petitioner, she had received less marks. According to her, in the subject of Pharmaceutics IV, she had referred to a Book by one Shri C.V.S. Subramanium and she had tallied all the answers given by her with the said book, and according to her she had answered most of the questions correctly. Similarly, in the subject of Pharmaceutical Analysis I, petitioner is said to have referred to a book written by Shri R.M. Verma and according to her she had tallied all the answers with the said book and she feels that she has answered all the questions correctly. Inspite thereof when she had received less marks, she sought for revaluation and when on revaluation nothing was done, she has filed this writ petition.

(3.) Merely because the petitioner apprehends that her answer sheets have not been valued properly and merely because petitioner assumes that she has studied the subjects in question from a particular book and that her answers are correct, jurisdiction is not conferred on this Court to direct for revaluation of the answer -sheets. Normally an assumption has to be drawn that the Experts who had valued the answer -sheets have discharged their duty properly. Material has to be produced by the petitioner to show before this Court that the valuation has not been properly made. For that petitioner has to get the answer -books from the University under the Right to Information Act and then specifically point out with supporting material that her answers have not been properly valued. Nothing of this sort has been done. Instead, a vague and unspecific allegation is made to say that her answers are not valued properly.