IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR. O R D E R S.B. CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.2105/2010. Neha Sharma Versus Rajasthan University of Health Sciences & Ors. Date of Order:- March 22, 2010. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MOHAMMAD RAFIQ Shri G.P. Kaushik for the petitioner. Shri Virendra Lodha and Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma for the respondents. ***** BY THE COURT:-
This writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with two prayers, one is that respondents be directed to allow his prayer for revaluation in one paper i.e. 2520-Human Physiology and Bio-Chemistry and second is to direct the respondents to grant him 1% grace marks and the criteria for fixing the outer limit of 5 marks may be declared unconstitutional.
2) Learned counsel for the petitioner in the course of arguments did not press the second prayer therefore, confined his argument only to first part of the prayer.
3) Learned counsel for petitioner has argued that since the petitioner appeared in the Examination in August, 2009 as the main examination in all the papers, his examination cannot be treated as part examination as per the definition given in Ordinance 157A Note NB(i). Learned counsel submitted that when he appeared in the main examination in August 2008, he failed to clear any of the subject and was allowed supplementary examination in February/March 2009 but thereafter August 2009 examination was the main examination. Restriction contained in Ordinance 157A Note NB(i) cannot therefore apply for revaluating the answer sheets of one of the papers of this main examination.
4) Shri Virendra Lodha and Shri Sanjeev Prakash Sharma, learned counsel for respondents have opposed the writ petition and submitted that even if petitioner appeared in August 2009 in all the papers, that would still be a part examination and therefore his case could not be considered under Ordinance 157A Note NB(i) and the answer sheets of all or any of the subjects cannot be revaluated.
5) I am afraid, what is contended by the learned counsel for respondents is not supported by definition of the part examination given in NB(i). Main examination of August 2009 does not cover the situation in which petitioner is placed. Ordinance 157A(ii) although does not permit revaluation in respect of the answer sheets of supplementary examination, special examination or of part examination, but definition of part examination as given in NB(i) provides that ‘part examination’ means an Examination at which a Candidate appears in those Subject(s)/Paper(s) only which he has yet to clear. In the first place, part examination signifies not the complete examination but only in part of that examination. Petitioner appeared in all six papers of main August Examination 2009 and secondly definition clause referred to above clearly requires that part of the examination in which candidate appears in due papers of only those subjects due papers which he has yet to clear. This also clearly shows that candidate should not have been appearing in all the papers but in some of the papers only. In the situation in which petitioner appeared in all the papers, he should be taken to have appeared in fresh main examination and Ordinance 157(ii) would not apply to his case.
6) In the result, writ petition is allowed. Respondents are directed to revaluate answer sheet of the petitioner in 2520-Human Physiology and Bio-Chemistry and declare the result thereof as expeditiously as possible but not later than one month from the date copy of this order is produced before them.
(MOHAMMAD RAFIQ), J.
ani