1 CGHC010188422026 2026:CGHC:28084-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR REVP No. 166 of 2026 Priya Mishra D/o Late Sushil Kumar Mishra Aged About 31 Years Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri Ram Park Colony, House No. D-9, Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Petitioner(s) versus 1 - University Grant Commission Through Secretary, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi 110002, New Delhi Delhi 2 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Higher Education Block- 2 And 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh 3 - National Testing C-20 1a/8, Sector 62, Link Outreach Centre Noida- 201309, Presently Address First Floor, Nisc Mdbp, Building Okhla Industry Estate, New Delhi 110020 4 - Atal Bihari Bajpayee Vishwavidyalaya Through Its Registrar Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Petitioner(s) : Priya Mishra in person through video conferencing For Respondent No.2-State For Respondent No.3 For Respondent No.4 : : : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate Mr.P.R.Patankar, Advocate Mr.Neeraj Choubey, Advocate BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.07.09 18:33:58 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 08.07.2026 1. Heard Petitioner Priya Mishra in person through video conferencing. Also heard Mr.S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for respondent No.2, Mr.P.R.Patankar, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.3 and Mr.Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.4. 2. The Petitioner has filed the present review petition against the order dated 21.04.2026 passed by this Court in W.A. No. 312 of 2026, whereby the Division Bench of this Court dismissed the writ appeal filed by the Petitioner and imposed costs of ₹50,000/- upon her. 3. The Petitioner-in-Person submits that the judgment under review suffers from an apparent error on the face of the record, inasmuch as the factual and legal issues involved in the present proceedings have not been correctly appreciated. The present matter pertains exclusively to the Petitioner's claim for grant of the benefit of rounding off of marks obtained in the LL.M. Examination for the limited purpose of securing the minimum 55% aggregate marks, thereby enabling her to become eligible for admission to the Ph.D. programme and for applying to the post of Assistant 3 Professor. The controversy raised in the present proceedings is confined to the applicability of the principle of rounding off and does not relate to revaluation or reassessment of answer scripts. 4. It is further submitted that while dismissing the writ petition, reliance has been placed upon earlier proceedings between the parties without appreciating that those proceedings arose from entirely distinct causes of action. In particular, Writ Appeal No. 403/2022 arose out of a writ petition seeking revaluation of answer scripts of two papers of the IV Semester LL.M. Examination. The issue of rounding off of marks neither arose for consideration nor was adjudicated therein. Therefore, the findings recorded in the said proceedings cannot operate against the Petitioner in the present case, where the relief claimed is altogether different. 5. The Petitioner further submits that Writ Petition No. 312/2020, which was decided on 20.06.2022, also did not involve any issue relating to rounding off of marks. Consequently, the said proceedings are distinguishable on facts as well as in law and could not have been treated as a bar to the maintainability of the present claim. It is further submitted that after dismissal of Writ Petition No. 1197/2019, the Petitioner pursued the remedies available in law by filing appropriate proceedings. The Petitioner filed MCC No. 222/2025 seeking restoration, thereafter filed Writ Petition No. 3355/2025, which came to be dismissed on the 4 ground of maintainability, and subsequently preferred Review Petition No. 219/2025. While disposing of the review petition, the learned Single Judge observed that the appropriate remedy available to the Petitioner was to prefer a writ appeal. The present proceedings have, therefore, been instituted strictly in accordance with the liberty and observations made by this Hon'ble Court, and there has been neither suppression of facts nor abuse of the process of law. 6. The Petitioner submits that the earlier proceedings and the present proceedings are founded on separate causes of action, seek distinct reliefs, and involve different legal questions. The earlier litigation related to revaluation of answer sheets, whereas the present proceedings concern only the grant of the benefit of rounding off of marks. Therefore, the present claim could not have been rejected by treating it as identical to the earlier proceedings. The Petitioner further submits that the imposition of exemplary costs of ₹50,000/- appears to have resulted from an inadvertent misconception regarding the nature of the present proceedings. The Petitioner has approached this Hon'ble Court bona fide for adjudication of a genuine legal issue and has neither concealed any material facts nor attempted to re-agitate an issue already decided on merits. The litigation has been pursued only for securing eligibility for higher education and public employment and not for any collateral or oblique purpose. 5 7. It is lastly submitted that the Petitioner is serving as an Assistant Professor and earns a modest income. The costs of ₹50,000/- imposed upon the Petitioner are disproportionately harsh and impose an undue financial burden, being equivalent to several months of her earnings. In the interest of justice, equity, and fair play, the Petitioner humbly prays that the judgment under review be reconsidered, the costs imposed be recalled or suitably modified, and the matter be decided on its own merits after considering the distinct cause of action involved in the present case. 8. We have perused the impugned judgment under review. 9. It is evident from the record that the petitioner had initially instituted WP(C) No.1197/2019 on 20.03.2019, seeking the following reliefs:- “10.1. The Hon'ble Court may issue an appropriate writ or direction, including a writ of Mandamus against the erring Respondent No.1 and permit rounding off of marks to meet the eligibility criteria. 10.2. The Hon'ble Court may order the Respondent No.3 to round off the score of the Petitioner to the nearest whole number and thereby convert 54.75% to 55% of marks in Masters of Law degree. 10.3. The Hon'ble Court may issue any other Writ, Order(s), Direction(s) or any other relief as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice.” 6 10. During the pendency of the aforesaid writ petition, the petitioner instituted another writ petition, being WP(C) No. 312/2020, on 15.01.2020, praying for the following reliefs:- “10.1) The Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to call for the entire records leading to the impugned action of the respondents for the kind perusal of this Hon'ble Court. 10.2) The Hon'ble Court may further kindly be pleased to direct the respondent to revalue the answer-sheet of the Petitioner and make corrections, if any. 10.3) Cost of the petition may also be granted to the petitioner. 10.4) Any other relief which this Hon'ble Court deems fit and proper may also kindly be granted to the petitioner, in the interest of justice.” 11.The aforesaid writ petition came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 20.06.2022. The petitioner challenged the said order by filing Writ Appeal No. 403/2022, which was dismissed by the Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated 12.09.2023. Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Review Petition No. 143/2023, which also came to be dismissed by the Division Bench vide order dated 25.01.2024. Thus, the issue relating to revaluation of the petitioner's answer scripts attained finality. 12.Thereafter, WP(C) No. 1197/2019, wherein the petitioner had specifically sought the benefit of rounding off of marks, also came to be dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 7 29.01.2025. The petitioner thereafter preferred MCC No. 222/2025 seeking restoration of the writ petition, which was dismissed on 05.03.2025. 13.Notwithstanding the aforesaid proceedings, the petitioner once again approached this Court by filing WP(C) No. 3355/2025, seeking the following reliefs:- “a. The Hon’ble Court may issue any other Writ, order, directions or any other relief and this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the nature and circumstances of the present case in the interest of justice. b. That the petitioner has had an initiated explanation that her answer sheet would be revaluate properly and fairly which was not done by therefore, petitioner become aggrieved and victim by the action of the university not being treated fairly regarding to revaluation. c. The education is a fundamental rights of petitioner and he is deprived to prosecuted her study of PHD only because she was lacking by 0.25% of Marks in LLM. Her right has been violated. The concept of rounding off no answer whole no. is an equitable concept to dilute reger of legality and to do justice.” The said writ petition also came to be dismissed by this Court vide order dated 08.07.2025 on the ground of maintainability. 14.Thereafter, the petitioner preferred Writ Appeal No. 312/2026 through learned counsel Mr. Barun Kumar Mishra. In the said writ 8 appeal, the respondents specifically raised the objection that the issues relating to revaluation of answer scripts as well as rounding off of marks had already been conclusively adjudicated in the earlier rounds of litigation. Significantly, the said submission was not disputed or controverted on behalf of the petitioner. After considering the entire factual background, this Court dismissed the writ appeal vide judgment dated 21.04.2026, while imposing costs of ₹50,000/-, having found that the petitioner was repeatedly re-agitating issues which had already attained finality. 15.It is pertinent to note that the writ appeal, being WA No. 312/2026, was argued on behalf of the petitioner by Mr. Barun Kumar Mishra, Advocate. During the course of hearing, the respondents had specifically contended that the issues relating to revaluation of answer scripts and rounding off of marks had already been conclusively adjudicated in the earlier rounds of litigation, and that the writ appeal was merely an attempt to reopen issues which had attained finality. The said submissions were not disputed or controverted on behalf of the petitioner, and the appeal was ultimately dismissed by this Court vide judgment dated 21.04.2026. 16.Having heard the petitioner-in-person and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds no merit in the present review petition. The scope of review jurisdiction is extremely limited. A review is maintainable only when there is an error apparent on the face of 9 the record, discovery of new and important matter which could not have been produced despite due diligence, or any other analogous ground. A review proceeding cannot be converted into an appeal in disguise nor can it be invoked to advance fresh submissions or to fill up omissions in the arguments addressed at the time of hearing. 17.In the present case, the petitioner seeks to contend that the earlier proceedings relating to revaluation and the present proceedings concerning rounding off of marks arise from different causes of action. This plea, however, was neither urged nor pressed at the time of hearing of WA No. 312/2026, though the respondents had specifically contended that both issues already stood concluded in the earlier litigation. The petitioner, through her learned counsel, did not controvert the said submission. The petitioner cannot now, under the guise of a review petition, seek to introduce an altogether new factual or legal foundation which was available to her at the time of hearing of the writ appeal but was not advanced. 18.This Court further finds that the controversy regarding revaluation of answer scripts has already travelled up to the stage of review before the Division Bench, while the issue relating to rounding off of marks also stood adjudicated in WPC No.1197/2019. Thereafter, restoration proceedings were also dismissed. The petitioner again instituted WPC No. 3355 of 2025, substantially raising the same grievance relating to revaluation and rounding 10 off, which too was dismissed. The successive proceedings instituted by the petitioner clearly demonstrate repeated attempts to reopen issues which have attained finality by judicial pronouncements. 19.The review jurisdiction cannot be exercised merely because the petitioner has subsequently devised a different line of argument or wishes to urge grounds which were omitted to be raised earlier. Accepting such a course would defeat the well-settled principle of finality of litigation and would amount to permitting endless re- agitation of concluded issues. 20.This Court also does not find any error apparent on the face of the judgment dated 21.04.2026 warranting exercise of review jurisdiction. The petitioner has failed to point out any patent error of law or fact, any inadvertent omission, or any material which was unavailable despite due diligence. The entire endeavour of the petitioner is only to persuade this Court to reconsider the matter on merits, which is wholly impermissible in review jurisdiction. 21.Accordingly, finding no ground warranting interference under the limited scope of review, the present Review Petition is dismissed. No cost(s). Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu