- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48228-DB RP No. 211 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND REVIEW PETITION NO. 211 OF 2025 IN WRIT APPEAL No. 257 OF 2024 (EDN-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI A.J. JAMES S/O A.C. JOSEPH AGED ABOUT 64 YEARS R/AT NO.576, 4TH CROSS HMT LAYOUT, R.T. NAGAR BANGALORE - 560 032 AS STUDENT APPELLANT …PETITIONER (BY SRI A.J. JAMES, REVIEW PETITIONER-PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY REPRESENTED BY THE VICE CHANCELLOR NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI - 580 025 2. THE REGISTRAR (EVALUATION) KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI - 580 025 Digitally signed by SUMATHY KANNAN Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48228-DB RP No. 211 of 2025 3. THE REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION) KARNATAKA STATE LAW UNIVERSITY NAVANAGAR HUBBALLI - 580 025 …RESPONDENTS THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER SECTION 114 R/W ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC 1908, PRAYING TO REVIEW THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT IN WRIT APPEAL No.257/2024 DATED 04.12.2024 INCLUDING INTERIM PRAYERS IN THE WRIT PETITION BE ALLOWED TAKING INTO CONSIDERATION THE ORAL ARGUMENTS ALONGIWTH DOCUMENTED SUBSTANTIVE FACTS. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The petitioner has filed the present review petition, seeking review of the judgment dated 04.12.2024 passed in W.A.No.257/2024 (EDN-RES). 2. The review petitioner had filed the said writ appeal impugning an order dated 20.09.2023 passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court in W.P.No.21215/2021. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48228-DB RP No. 211 of 2025 3. The review petitioner (appellant) had joined a three-year LL.B. course at Rajiv Gandhi College of Law, Bengaluru, which is affiliated to Karnataka State Law University. The appellant had undertaken the Semester examinations, but had not cleared certain subjects. In the aforesaid circumstance, the appellant sought revaluation of his examination papers. Under the challenge valuation scheme, the review petitioner’s marks in certain subjects were altered (both upwards and downwards). The review petitioner was not satisfied with the revaluation. 4. On merits, this Court found that the appellant's request had been examined on the basis of the Regulations in force. The Court held that the academic institutions have the autonomy to regulate their examination and evaluation processes, and therefore, the appellant's challenge to the same was rejected. This Court found no ground to interfere with the said decision. 5. The review petitioner appears in person and submits that his challenge was not on the processes undertaken but on the subjective decision. He submits that the statistics indicate that the results were changed in a large number of cases and there is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48228-DB RP No. 211 of 2025 upward revision of about 35% marks in around 80% of the subjects. He submits that the same indicates that the entire scheme of evaluation, which requires proper evaluation of the examination of the answer papers was not undertaken. In addition, he submits that his challenge is to the implementation of the scheme and not on the lack of process or failure to adhere to the process. Additionally, he submits that the decision of the learned Single Judge as well as the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court, are erroneous as the Registrar (Evaluation) has the power to arrange for redressal of the grievance of students relating to valuation, revaluation, challenge valuation, etc. Thus his request for further revaluation could be considered. 6. We find no grounds to review the judgment dated 04.12.2024. This Court had found that the appellant's request for revaluation / challenge valuation as provided under the relevant rules, was granted to him and there was no scope of conducting the exercise of any further revaluation or re-assessment. In the absence of any such provisions permitting the same, the appellant's request for further revaluation could not be acceded to. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48228-DB RP No. 211 of 2025 The review petitioner's contention that the revaluation was not proper, was disposed of by the Court in view of its decision that further revaluation was not permissible under the rules and regulations. 7. In view of the above, the present review petition is dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE KS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4