1 2025:CGHC:28907 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4226 of 2021  Dinesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Thakur Prasad Dewangan Aged About 38 Years R/o Nera Pushp Broiler House , Shahid Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jal Grih Marg, Tikrapara , Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Secretary Department Of Higher Education, Mantralay Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2. Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University Through Registrar Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause Title is taken from Case Information System) For Petitioner : Mr. Sushobhit Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Vedant Shadangi, Panel Lawyer For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 30. 06.2025 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the following relief(s):- “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue appropriate direction and call for entire records pertaining to the case. 10.2 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash the impugned letter Annexure P/1 dated 15.7.2021 issued by Respondent No 2. 10.3 That, this Hon'ble Court may be further pleased to direct the respondents authorities to submit the answersheet of the petitioner for Re Re re-evaluation SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Digitally signed by SIDDHANT TAMRAKAR Date: 2025.07.01 10:21:04 +0530 2 as per University Ordinance dated 2.6.2017. 10.4 Any other relief as may be directed by the Hon'ble court in the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner participated in the M. Com. final examination for the session of March-April, 2019, and the result was declared in the month of June 2019. The petitioner was declared passed with 60% overall marks. He would further submit that in the final year, the petitioner was awarded 43/100 in Income Tax Law and 53/100 in Financial Management subjects. He would also submit that the petitioner moved an application for re-evaluation on 16.07.2019. The result was declared on 20.12.2019, and it was informed that there was no change. He would contend that the petitioner moved another application for re-evaluation on 09.01.2020, and the result was declared on 28.02.2020, but he was not provided the exact marks obtained by him. He would further contend that the mark sheet was provided by the petitioner on 24.06.2020, wherein the marks obtained in Income Tax Law were increased from 43 to 53 out of 100, and in Financial Management it was reduced from 53 to 42 out of 100. It is also contended that the respondent university has not acted properly and strictly in accordance with its ordinance. It is further contended that a direction may be issued to the respondents to re-evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner of two subjects, Income Tax Law and Financial Management properly. 3. On the other hand, learned Advocates appearing for respective respondents would oppose. Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate, would submit that according to the university ordinance, answer-sheets were checked and re-checked, and the petitioner was properly intimated. He would further submit that the petitioner was already declared pass with first division and re-evaluation was done strictly in accordance with the 3 applicable ordinance. 4. I have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Taking into consideration the fact that in the year 2019, the petitioner participated in M. Com. final examination and thereafter, an application for re-evaluation was moved. The petitioner was duly intimated the result of the revaluation and thereafter, this petition was filed. 6. Perusal of the documents annexed along with the writ petition would show that the university valued and re-valued the answer-sheets of two subjects of the petitioner in accordance with the existing rules/university ordinances. There is no provision of re-valuation for the third time, therefore, I do not find any good ground to interfere with the decision taken by the university. Consequently, this petition fails and is hereby dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge $iddhant