[2025:RJ-JP:31593-DB] HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR D.B. Special Appeal Writ No. 499/2023 Babu Lal Swami S/o Hanuman Das, Aged About 36 Years, R/o Plot No. 43, Raman Vihar-C, Near Jharjhar Mahadev Mandir, Sikar Road No. 5, Near Pulia, Machra, Jaipur. ----Appellant Versus 1. University Of Rajasthan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur Through The Registrar. 2. Controller Of Exam, University Of Rajasthan, Jawahar Lal Nehru Marg, Jaipur. ----Respondents For Appellant(s) : Mr. Akshit Gupta For Respondent(s) : Mr. P.S.Tomar HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AVNEESH JHINGAN HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU Order 13/08/2025 AVNEESH JHINGAN, J:- 1. This intra-court appeal is filed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 26.04.2023 passed in SBCWP No.12216/2022. 2. Brief facts are that the appellant appeared in M.A.(Sanskrit) Part-I Examination-2018, M.A.(Sanskrit) Part-II Examination-2019 and thereafter in the year 2021 appeared in M.A.(Sanskrit) Part-I and Part-II online examination for improvement of his marks in all nine subjects. After declaration of result, the appellant applied for re-evaluation of marks of four subjects. The result of the re- evaluation was that the previous result stands. The appellant sought copy of the question paper and answer-sheet for the [2025:RJ-JP:31593-DB] (2 of 3) [SAW-499/2023] subject ‘Lalit Sahitya Avam Natak’ and thereafter filed writ petition relying upon guideline dated 15.07.2021 to contend that in Question No.3 of the question paper of Lalit Sahitya Avam Natak, the evaluation should have been out of thirty marks. The learned Single Judge dismissed the petition on failure of the petitioner to produce by law or ordinance of the University under which claim about the wrong evaluation of the marks could be made. Hence, the present appeal. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that as per the guideline, the appellant had to attempt only 50% of the question paper and the marks given for the attempts were converted to 100%. 4. Learned counsel for the respondent-University submits that the Ordinance 157-A provides for re-evaluation of the exams. The appellant appeared in nine exams, applied for re-evaluation in four exams and opted not to apply for re-evaluation for the subject Lalit Sahiya Avam Natak. 5. The issue as to whether the grievance raised by the appellant, relying upon the circular has merits, need not be dilated as neither in writ nor in appeal any ordinance or bylaws of the University has been placed on record, wherein the methodology for evaluation could be challenged. The appellant was well aware of the provisions of re-evaluation and applied for re-evaluation of four papers and decided not to apply re-evaluation for the paper of Lalit Sahitya Avam Natak. 6. From perusal of the Ordinance 157-A, it is evident that the entire procedure, including the time period for re-evaluation has been prescribed therein. [2025:RJ-JP:31593-DB] (3 of 3) [SAW-499/2023] 7. For not producing ordinance or bylaws under which the evaluation of a question can be revisited and opting not to apply for revaluation under Ordinance 157-A, the learned Single Judge rightly refused to interfere in writ jurisdiction. 8. Before concluding, it would be relevant to note that on perusal of the question paper, it is evident that the entire question paper consisted of seven questions totaling one hundred marks. In Question No.3, out of four sub-questions, two were to be attempted each option carrying seven and a half marks totaling to fifteen marks. It is not disputed that the appellant does not challenge the fact that the marks were awarded in accordance with the scheme provided in the question paper. 9. The appeal is dismissed. (BALJINDER SINGH SANDHU),J (AVNEESH JHINGAN),J Monika/42