1 2025:CGHC:56415 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 4341 of 2019 1 - Smt. Hemlata Kamde (Ku. Hemlata Khirsagar) W/o Suraj Kamde Aged About 40 Years R/o Tata Line, Kohaka, House No. 186, Supela, Bhilai Nagar, Durg District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner versus 1 - Pt. Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, District - Raipur Through Its Registrar, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - The Principal, Kalyan College, Bhilai Nagar, District - Durg Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner : Mr. A. D. Kuldeep, Advocate For Respondent No. 1 : Mr. Raghvendra Pradhan, Advocate For Respondent No. 2 : Mr. Manoj Kumar Dubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Order On Board 19.11.2025 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking for the following relief(s); “10.1 That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, thereby directing the respondent authorities to issue fresh corrected result of M.Com. of petitioner after verifying the records in respect of "Advertising and Sales Management" subject of the petitioner. In alternate This Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondent authorities to provide the answer sheet of M.Com. of "Advertising and Sales Management" subject of the petitioner. HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Digitally signed by HIFZURRAHMAN ANSARI Date: 2025.11.20 14:39:25 +0530 2 10.2 To kindly grant any other relief which may be deem fit in the given facts and circumstances of the instant case.” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was a student of M.Com and had appeared in the final year examination held in the year 2004. It is submitted that the petitioner had appeared in all the subjects; however, despite this, she has been shown as “failed” in the mark-sheet issued for that purpose. Counsel further submits that although the petitioner had appeared in the examination, she was incorrectly marked “absent” in the 5th paper, i.e., the subject of Advertising and Sales Management. It is urged that the respondents be directed to produce the petitioner’s answer sheet for the said subject and to issue a corrected M.Com result after due verification of the records. 3. Opposing the submissions, learned counsel for the respondents submits that the M.Com Final Year examination was held in the year 2004. It consisted of five papers and one viva-voce. The petitioner appeared in four subjects as a private candidate; however, in the fifth subject, namely Advertising and Sales Management, the examination for which was conducted on 11.05.2004, she remained absent. It is further submitted that since the petitioner remained absent in that particular subject, she was rightly declared “failed”. In support of their contention, learned counsel refers to the documents annexed with their returns to demonstrate that the petitioner did not appear in the said paper. 4. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents available on record. 5. The petitioner’s case is that despite having appeared in the paper of Advertising and Sales Management held on 11.05.2004, she was marked “absent” and consequently declared “failed”. However, from the perusal of the return, it is evident that the attendance sheet filed by respondent No. 2 clearly 3 indicates that the petitioner did not appear in the examination. In addition, the tabulation sheet filed by respondent No. 1 also records that she remained absent in the said subject. This factual position has not been controverted by the petitioner either by filing a rejoinder or otherwise. 6. In view of the above, the writ petition is devoid of merit and is accordingly dismissed. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge H.Ansari