[2025:RJ-JP:26530] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR S.B. Civil Writ Petition No. 7333/2010 Parikshit Goswami Son Of Shri Bhanwar Puri Goswami, By Caste Brahmin, C 44, Nandpuri, Hawa Sarak, 22 Godown, Jaipur. At Present Residing At House No. Ad-78, Shivaji Nagar, Pali Rajasthan ----Petitioner Versus 1. The University Of Rajasthan Through Vice Chancellor, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 2. The Controller Of Examination, University Of Rajasthan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. 3. The Coordinator, Department Of Institute Of Information And Instrumentation I.I.I. University Of R, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur 4. The Secretary, Higher Education, Government Of Rajasthan, Secretariat, Jaipur ----Respondents For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Chetan Kumar Jain For Respondent(s) : Mr. Anupama Chaturvedi JUSTICE ANOOP KUMAR DHAND Order 16/07/2025 1. The instant writ petition has been filed by the petitioner with the following prayer:- “It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this writ petition may kindly be allowed and issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction to respondents University to declare the petitioner as pass as per old scheme of passing of the semester by giving one grace mark in subject No. 132 and issue revised fresh marks sheet of IIIrd Semester and thereafter revising the result M. Sc. (I. T.) of the petitioner, or in the alternatively, petitioner may be given one [2025:RJ-JP:26530] (2 of 2) [CW-7333/2010] another chance to clear the theory papers of subject No. 132 and 135. Any other order, which this Hon'ble Court considers fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case may kindly be granted in favour of the petitioner. 2. By way of filing this writ petition, the petitioner is seeking direction against the respondent- University to declare him pass by granting him grace marks and thereby revising his result. 3. Counsel for the respondents submits that the total marks for the question paper were 100, which were divided into two parts i.e. theory and internal examination. Counsel submits that out of 80 marks in the theory exam, the petitioner secured only 21 marks, while in the internal examination out of 20 marks, the petitioner secured 18 marks. Counsel submits that the candidates are required to secure a minimum of 40% marks to pass the theory examination and a minimum 50% marks in aggregate but the petitioner has failed to secure the minimum aggregate marks, hence the relief sought in this petition cannot be granted by the respondent University. 4. Considering the above submission made by counsel for the respondents and looking to the fact that the petitioner has failed to secure the minimum aggregate marks, hence the relief sought in this petition cannot be granted by this Court. 5. This Court finds no merit and substance in this petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (ANOOP KUMAR DHAND),J Ashu/68