1 2025:CGHC:4893 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 977 of 2019 1 - Unnati Tiwari D/o Shri Anand Tiwari Aged About 22 Years R/o Baldevbagh, Ward No. 16, District- Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - Government Digvijay P.G. Autonomous College Rajnandganon Through Its Principal, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Principal Government Digivijay P.G. Autonomous College, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 3 - Hemchand Yadav University Durg Through Its Registrar, District- Durg, Chhattisgarh., District : Durg, Chhattisgarh 4 - Controller Autonomous Examination Government Digvijay P.G. Autonomous College, Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondents For Petitioner : Mr. Anand Shukla, Advocate For State : Mr. S.P. Kale, Additional A.G. For Respondent No.3 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate Hon'ble Shri Justice Rakesh Mohan Pandey Order on Board 28.01.2025 Digitally signed by REKHA SINGH -2- 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking the following relief(s):- “10.1) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to quash/set-aside the orders dated 26.09.2018 passed by Respondent No.1 Principal Govt. Digvijay Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, rejecting the application for revaluation of marks of the Petitioner in Poetry-II and Drama-II papers of M.A. English Literature Semester-II Examination. 10.2) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to direct the respondents to carryout proper revaluation and make necessary changes in the mark sheet as per the marks obtained by the Petitioner and issue fresh mark-sheet. 10.3) That, this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to grant compensation amounting to Rs.50,000/- to the petitioner considering the facts and circumstances of the case and further considering the mental trauma undergone by her who had otherwise obtained very good marks/grade; and 10.4)Any other relief or relief(s) which this Hon'ble Court may think proper in view of the facts and circumstances of the case may also kindly be granted.” 2. Mr. Shukla, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the petitioner appeared in the examination of M.A. English Literature in the year 2017-18. He would further submit that the result of M.A. English Second Semester was declared and in Drama-II subject, as per the result, she secured 48 marks. He 3 would contend that an application for revaluation was moved and the said application was rejected on 26.09.2018. The petitioner obtained a copy of the answer-sheet under RTI and she came to know that she had secured 57 marks. After the objection was raised by the petitioner, the answer-sheet of the petitioner was rechecked and according to the examiner, the petitioner secured 57 marks. He would further contend that the State in its reply particularly, in para 4 has admitted this fact. He would also submit that respondent No.1 has not issued the fresh mark-sheet after correction. 3. On the other hand, Mr. Kale, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State as well as Mr. Choubey, the learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 would oppose the submissions made by Mr. Shukla. They would submit that the petitioner should have approached the College Level Grievance Redressal Cell constituted by respondent No.1 itself. They would further submit that if the petitioner would approach the concerned Cell, an appropriate decision would be taken. 4. Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the documents placed on the record. 5. Admittedly, the State in para 4 of its return has admitted the fact that there is an error/mistake in mentioning 48 marks in the mark- sheet, whereas, the petitioner has secured a total of 57 marks out -4- of a total of 80 marks in the paper of Drama-II. 6. Taking into consideration the above-discussed facts, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to the College Level Grievance Redressal Cell constituted by respondent No.1 itself to take appropriate steps with regard to the correction of mark-sheet of the petitioner pertaining to M.A. English Second Semester, 2018, if law permits. The entire exercise shall be completed by respondent No.1 within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. 7. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. 8. With the aforesaid observation(s)/direction(s), the present petition is disposed of. Sd/- (Rakesh Mohan Pandey) Judge Rekha