1 2025:CGHC:58763-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WA No. 884 of 2025 Dinesh Kumar Dewangan S/o Shri Thakur Prasad Dewangan, aged about 38 Years R/o Pushp Brayler House (Wrongly Mention Nera Pushp Broiler), Shahid Bhagat Singh Chowk, Jal Grah Marg, Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, through Secretary, Department of Higher Education, Mantralaya, Mahanadi Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 2 - Pt. Ravishankar University Through Registrar, Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, Advocate For Respondent No.1/ State : Mr. Praveen Das, Dy. Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 04.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondents on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, application for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the instant appeal. ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No. 01 of 2025, the same is allowed. Delay of 53 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. Further, the defaults pointed out by the Registry stand waived off. 3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally. 4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.4226 of 2021 (Dinesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge. 5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that at 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 and the petitioner was declared passed with 60% overall marks, and he was awarded 43/100 in Income Tax Law and 53/100 in Financial Management subjects. The petitioner moved an application for re-evaluation on 16.07.2019 and the result was declared on 20.12.2019, and it was informed that there was no change. The petitioner moved another application for re- evaluation on 09.01.2020, and the result was declared on 3 28.02.2020 and the mark-sheet was provided to 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. The petitioner on the very next day i.e. on 25.06.2020 applied before Vice Chancellor for Re Re Revaluation as per University Ordinance dated 02.06.2017, however, the said application was rejected by the respondent University citing the reason that the application for Re Re Revaluation has been submitted beyond the period of seven days. 6. The petitioner filed a writ petition being WPC No. 4226 of 2021 contending that the respondent University has not acted properly and strictly in accordance with its ordinance and further seeking a direction for re-evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner of two subjects i.e. Income Tax Law and Financial Management properly. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 30.06.2025. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the case of the appellant and passed the impugned order holding that the University valued the answer sheet and re-valued two subjects of the petitioner in accordance with the existing rule/ university ordinance, there is no provision of re-valuation for the third time, whereas University Ordinance dated 02.06.2017 specifically provides a third opportunity for revaluation. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has 4 further failed to appreciate that the appellant received the revised mark sheet on 24.06.2020 and the petitioner on the very next day i.e. on 25.06.2020 applied before Vice Chancellor for Re Re Revaluation as per University Ordinance dated 02.06.2017, however, the said application was rejected by the respondent University citing the reason that the application for Re Re Revaluation has been submitted beyond the period of seven days and the same was communicated to the petitioner only on 15.07.2021. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal. 10. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that the University valued and re-valued the answer-sheets of two subjects of the petitioner in accordance with the existing rules/university ordinances. Further from perusal of the revised mark-sheet which was issued after revaluation, it transpires that the said mark-sheet was issued on 28.02.2020, thus the appellant’s contention that it was received by him on 5 24.06.2020 without any documents in support of his contention is misconceived. As such, we do not find any good ground for interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge. 11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra