1 2025:CGHC:31205 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3355 of 2025 Priya Mishra D/o Late Sushil Kumar Mishra Aged About 37 Years Residence Agay Nagar Block B /237 Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - National Testing Agency C - 20 1a/8, Sector 62 Litk Outreach Center Noida - 201309. Presently Address First Floor, Nsic - Mdbp Building Okhla Industrial Estate, New Delhi - 110020. 2 - Atal Bihari Vajpayee Vishwavidhyalaya Through Its Registrar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh Pin 495009. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. Barun Kumar Mishra, Advocate appears on behalf of Mr. Dinesh Kumar Bole, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate For Respondent no. 2 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 08.07.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner is seeking the following reliefs:- a. The Hon’ble Court may issue any other Writ, order, directions or any other relief and this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice. b. That the petitioner has had an initiated explanation that her answer sheet would be revaluate properly and fairly which was not done by therefore, petitioner become aggrieved and victim by the action of the university not being treated fairly regarding to revaluation. c. The education is a fundamental rights of petitioner and he is 2 deprived to prosecuted her study of PHD only because she was lacking by 0.25% of Marks in LLM. Her right has been violated. The concept of rounding off no answer whole no. is an equitable concept to dilute reger of legality and to do justice. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that her answer sheet would be revaluated properly and fairly. As the assessment of the answer sheet has not been done properly. 3. On the other hand learned counsel for respondent no. 1 vehemently argues that the present petition is not maintainable. 4. Learned counsel for respondent no. 2 also opposes the prayer made by the learned counsel for the petitioner. 5. I have heard learned counsel for the respective parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6. Considering the aspects of the present petition, it is noteworthy that the case of the petitioner was already dismissed by this Court vide order dated 29.01.2025 in WPC No. 1197 of 2019, therefore, the present petition is not maintainable. 7. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as having being not maintainable. sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE alfiza