1 2025:CGHC:10658 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR MCC No. 222 of 2025  Priya Mishra D/o Late Shri Sushil Kumar Mishra Aged About 31 Years Maharana Pratap Nagar Shri Rampark Colony House No. D-9 Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Applicant(s) versus 1. University Grant Commission Through Secretary Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg New Delhi- 110002, District New Delhi 2. The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Higher Education Block - 2 And 3rd Floor Indravati Bhawan Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3. National Testing Agency C-20 1a/8, Sector 62 Litk Outreach Center Noida- 201309. 4. Atal Bihari Bajpayee Vishwavidyala Through Its Registrar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) Applicant-in-person : Ms. Priya Mishra For Respondent No. 1/UGC : Mr. Jitendra Nande, Advocate For State : Mr. Pramod Shrivastava, Dy. Government Advocate For Respondent No. 3 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent No. 4 : Mr. Avinash Mishra, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 05. 03.2025 1. The applicant has filed this application for restoration of WPC No. 1197 of 2019, which was decided on merits vide order dated 29.01.2025. SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.03.11 09:43:52 +0530 2 2. The applicant would argue that WPC No. 1197 of 2019 was set for hearing on 29.01.2025 but no-one appeared on her behalf in two rounds; therefore, the petition was disposed of. She would pray that the matter may be restored and she may be afforded the opportunity to argue the case. 3. On the other hand, learned counsels appearing for the non-applicants would submit that no-one appeared in two rounds when the writ petition was taken up for hearing. They would further submit that the petition was filed by the petitioner for rounding of marks secured in masters of law. They would contend that the issue involved in the writ petition is squarely covered with the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Bhanu Pratap vs. State of Haryana and Others, AIR 2011 SC 3272:2011 AIR SCW 4573, and therefore, the petition was dismissed on merits. They would further contend that as the writ petition was dismissed on merits, and the applicant could not assign sufficient reasons for her appearance, the application for restoration is liable to be dismissed. They would also contend that the applicant may challenge the order passed in the writ petition by filing an appeal. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the order passed in WPC No. 1197 of 2019. 5. The applicant has filed an application for restoration of WPC No. 1197 of 2019 on the ground that she could not appear on 29.01.2025 in two rounds when the matter was taken up for hearing. The order passed in the writ petition would show that the matter was finally decided on merits in light of the judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, and thus, no case is made out for the recall of the order. Therefore, the application for restoration is hereby dismissed. 3 6. However, the applicant would be at liberty to take recourse to law. d Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant