1 2026:CGHC:26071 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WPC No. 3138 of 2026 1 - Yogiraj Chandrakar S/o Puranik Chandrakar Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Rakhi Post Bhatagaon Tehsil Kurud District Dhamtari C.G. ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Secretary Higher Education Department Mahanadi Bhawan Mantralaya Nawa Raipur Atal Nagar District Raipur C.G. 2 - Pandit Revishankar Shukla University Reipur District Raipur C.G. 3 - Registrar Pandit Revishankar Shukla University Raipur District Raipur C.G. 4 - Controller Of Examinations Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University Raipur District Raipur C.G. ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Mr. Ujjawal Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent(s)/State : Mr. Soumitra Kesharwani, Advocate. For Respondents No. 2 to 4 : Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate. RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Mr. Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Order on Board 25/06/2026 1. By way of this petition, the petitioner has prayed for following reliefs:- “10.1 That, the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, therebydeclaring the action and inaction of the respondents in failing to properly examine, decide and redress the petitioner's grievance relating to the revaluation process and in failing to pass any reasoned order thereon, despite repeated representations and proceedings under the RTI Act, 2005, as arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Articles 14 and 21 of the Constitution of India; 10.2 That, the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby holding that the respondents acted negligently and arbitrarily in dealing with the petitioner's revaluation grievance, thereby causing loss of one academic year, educational opportunity, mental agony and prejudice to the petitioner's future career prospects; 10.3 That, the Hon'ble Court may graciously be pleased to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction, thereby award suitable compensation in favour of the petitioner and 3 against the respondents jointly and severally for the loss of one academic year, loss of educational opportunity, mental agony, harassment and continuing prejudice caused by the arbitrary and negligent conduct of the respondents; 10.4 That, any other relief/order which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and just in the facts and circumstances of the case, including the cost of the petition.” 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the petitioner was a bona fide student of B.Sc. (Biology) under Pandit Ravishankar Shukla University, Raipur, and after successfully passing the B.Sc. Part-I Examination, appeared in the B.Sc. Part-II Examination, the result whereof was declared on 22.07.2014. The petitioner was declared unsuccessful in Botany Theory Paper-II and Chemistry Theory Paper-I. Aggrieved by the marks awarded, he applied for revaluation; however, no change was made in Chemistry Theory Paper-I and only one mark was increased in Botany Theory Paper-II. Thereafter, on the petitioner's repeated representations, the respondent University undertook re-revaluation, pursuant to which the petitioner's marks in Botany Theory Paper-II were enhanced from 9 to 25 marks, thereby indicating that the original evaluation suffered from serious discrepancies. However, in respect of Chemistry Theory Paper-I, although the petitioner had specifically sought re-evaluation of Part-I of the answer book, the respondent authorities instead altered the marks of Part-III, leaving the disputed portion completely unexamined. Left with no 4 other alternative, the petitioner appeared in the Super Supplementary Examination but was again declared unsuccessful. Thereafter, the petitioner continuously pursued his grievance by submitting several representations before the University authorities, filing an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005, preferring the statutory First Appeal and thereafter a Second Appeal before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. The State Information Commission, by order dated 09.10.2017, recorded a categorical finding that incorrect and irrelevant information had been furnished to the petitioner and directed the respondent University to provide complete information regarding the action taken on his representations. Despite the aforesaid directions, the respondent authorities neither examined the petitioner's substantive grievance regarding the evaluation of Chemistry Theory Paper-I nor passed any reasoned order thereon. Even subsequently, Complaint Case No. C/4963/2025/Dhamtari came to be registered before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission, which remains pending, thereby demonstrating that the petitioner's grievance has remained unresolved despite his continuous pursuit of the matter. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the respondents have acted in a wholly arbitrary, unreasonable and unfair manner by failing to examine the petitioner's specific grievance relating to the evaluation of Chemistry Theory Paper-I. It is submitted that while the respondent University itself acknowledged serious errors 5 in the original evaluation by enhancing the petitioner's marks in Botany Theory Paper-II from 9 to 25 upon re-revaluation, it failed to consider the very portion of the Chemistry answer book that had been specifically challenged by the petitioner and instead altered the marks of an altogether different portion, thereby defeating the very object of the revaluation process. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner has never acquiesced in or abandoned his claim and has been diligently pursuing his grievance since the year 2014 by filing repeated representations, applications under the Right to Information Act, statutory appeals and proceedings before the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission. Despite repeated directions issued by the competent authorities, including the State Information Commission, the respondents have failed to pass any reasoned or speaking order or to properly address the petitioner's grievance. It is, therefore, contended that the respondents' continued inaction constitutes a continuing wrong giving rise to a recurring cause of action and, consequently, the present writ petition cannot be dismissed on the ground of delay or laches. It is further submitted that the arbitrary conduct of the respondents has resulted in the petitioner losing one valuable academic year and has caused serious academic prejudice, mental agony and adverse consequences to his future educational and career prospects, thereby warranting interference by this Court in exercise of its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 6 4. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents opposes the same. 5. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the material available on record, it is evident that the petitioner has been continuously pursuing his grievance before the respondent University as well as the authorities constituted under the Right to Information Act, 2005. It is not in dispute that the petitioner preferred a Second Appeal under the provisions of the Right to Information Act on 05.04.2016, which came to be allowed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission vide order dated 09.10.2017. By the said order, the State Information Commission specifically directed the respondent University to furnish complete and proper information as sought by the petitioner within a period of thirty (30) days. Admittedly, the aforesaid order has neither been challenged nor set aside by any competent forum and, therefore, the same has attained finality and is binding upon the respondent University. Consequently, the respondent University is under a statutory obligation to comply with the directions issued by the State Information Commission. 7. In view of the aforesaid facts and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's grievance relating to the evaluation or revaluation of his answer books, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent University to ensure 7 due compliance with the order dated 09.10.2017 passed by the Chhattisgarh State Information Commission by furnishing to the petitioner complete and specific information as directed therein, if the same has not already been furnished, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. 8. It is further observed that upon furnishing the information, if the petitioner is still aggrieved and any cause of action survives in accordance with law, it shall be open to him to avail such remedy as may be available to him under the relevant statutory provisions. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the petitioner's claim regarding the evaluation of his answer books, and all questions in that regard are left open. 9. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Raghu Jat