R.P. No.312/2011
29.07.2011
The review petition seeks review of our order dated
12.5.2011. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
Learned counsel for the petitioner is relying heavily upon
the clerical error in the return filed by the respondents, which
mentioned that as a result of revaluation the petitioner got 24
marks in place of the original 20 marks.
Our earlier order dated 12.5.2011 indicates that the
original answer books were produced and according to them
only 22 marks have been secured instead of 20 as a result of
re-valuation. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that we
should ignore the original answer book and go by the typing
error in the return which is totally misconceived. No logical
reason has been shown for preferring the obvious clerical error
in the return in place of what was found in the original answer
books.
Even if instead of the original 22 marks the petitioner is
given 22 marks and instead of the original 7 marks she is given
13 marks resulting from revaluation then adding the 13 marks of
practical paper, her gross total would be only 48 marks which is
2 short of the passing marks.
Student should rely upon studying harder, instead of
relying on writ petitions, for passing examinations. The review
petition is dismissed.
(Sushil Harkauli) (S. C. Sinho)
Judge Judge
snb/-