RAJESH KUMAR BENDE Vs. RANI DURGAVATI VISHWAVIDYALAYA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, seeking a direction to the respondents to produce the answer-sheets of the subjects of Legislative Drafting and Interpretation Statutes and Criminology, Penology and Criminal Administration of the LL.B. V Semester (Old) Examination, Nov.-Dec.,2017 and those answer-sheets be got rechecked from experts of the aforesaid subjects on the cost of petitioner.

(2.) The facts of the case, adumbrated in a nutshell, are that the petitioner is a regular student of LL.B. Course. According to him he has passed IV Semester Examination and thereafter he appeared in the LL.B. V Semester (Old) Examination, Nov.- Dec.,2017. He applied for rechecking of the subjects of Legislative Drafting and Interpretation Statutes and Criminology, Penology and Criminal Administration. The petitioner was declared failed because of shortage of percentage in the subject and also shortage in aggregate. In re-totalling of marks in the said subjects, no change was found by the respondents and the same was communicated to the petitioner vide communication dated 17-9-2018. Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently urged that the petitioner has strong reasons to believe that there is clerical mistake in totalling of the aforesaid subjects and, therefore, he has filed the present petition seeking a direction for rechecking of the answer-sheets of the aforesaid subjects on his own cost.

(3.) Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submitted that re-totalling of the aforesaid subjects was done by the University as per rules, but no change was found and result thereof was also notified. It is further contended that there is no clerical mistake in totalling of the marks in the aforesaid subjects. It is stated that the academic record of the petitioner has been consistently very poor. It is stated in the reply that in the year 2012 the petitioner got ATKT marks in the subjects of Company Law and Indian Partnership Act with only 25% marks. The total percentage in this Semester was 42.67%. The petitioner could not get the passing marks and the subjects of Company Law and the Indian Partnership Act and also, he could not achieve the aggregate of 50% and, therefore, was declared failed. In the same manner in the year 2014-2015 also he was short of total aggregate marks. Again, in the year 2016 he appeared in the LL.B. V Semester Examination and was failed in the aggregate. In 2017 he secured only 284 marks out of 600, i.e. 47.3% which was again short of 50% aggregate. The respondents have also disclosed the marks of the petitioner in the subject of Legislative Drafting and Interpretation of Statutes from the year 2015 to 2017 - 45, 45, 48, 45, 44 and 51 respectively.