Rajnish Anand, son of Subhas Parsad Manjhi, aged about 26 years, at present student v. 1. The Vinoba Bhave University, through its Registrar, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. – Hazaribag
Case Details
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI W.P. (C.) No. 2749 of 2024 ---- Rajnish Anand, son of Subhas Parsad Manjhi, aged about 26 years, at present student of IV semester PG-Chemistry of session 2022- 2024 in Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag and resident of village – Jayparkash Nagar, P.O. and P.S. – Godda, District – Godda, Jharkhand, 825301 .... Petitioner -- Versus -- 1. The Vinoba Bhave University, through its Registrar, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. – Hazaribag, District – Hazaribag, Jharkhand 2. The Vice Chancellor, Vinoba Bhave University, Hazaribag, P.O. and P.S. – Hazaribag, District – Hazaribag, Jharkhand 3. The Controller of Examination, Examination Section, Vinoba Bhave University, P.O. and P.S. – Hazaribag, District – Hazaribag, Jharkhand 4. The Dean (Academic), Vinoba Bhave University, P.O. and P.S. – Hazaribag, District – Hazaribag, Jharkhand .... Respondents ----
Legal Reasoning
CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR DWIVEDI --- For the Petitioner For the V.B. University :- :- Mr. Himanshu Harsh, Advocate Mr. Amresh Kumar, Advocate ---- 07/14.08.2024 Heard learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and learned counsel appearing for the Vinoba Bhave University. 2. The prayer in the writ petition is made for direction upon the respondent authorities to conduct a thorough and impartial review of the petitioner’s examination papers. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is enrolled as a student at Vinoba Bhave University, specifically within the University Department of Chemistry, pursuing his studies in PG Chemistry in fourth semester of the academic session from 2022 to 2024. --1-- W.P. (C.) No. 2749 of 2024 He submits that the petitioner has appeared in the exam of PG- Chemistry-Semester II examination which was held on 06.07.2023. He further submits that the petitioner has written his exam very meritoriously as he has scored good marks in previous semester also and he was on hope that he will obtain good marks in semester II also. He then submits that the result was declared on 14.09.2023 and the petitioner was found to be failed in paper VI that is Organic Chemistry. He submits that the petitioner approached the University for re- evaluation and also applied to withdraw a photocopy of the checked answer sheet of Organic Chemistry which is paper No.6 which was supplied to the petitioner. He submits that wrongly the marks have been provided to the petitioner and in view of that the writ petition was filed. He submits that now pursuant to order of this Court dated 29.07.2024, the University has further re-evaluated the marks of the petitioner of Organic Chemistry, however by way of re-evaluation also, the respondent authorities have added only two marks for the said paper. He submits that the said is not in accordance with law as such the direction may kindly be issued to the respondent University to declare pass by the University in Organic Chemistry. He further submits that by way of I.A. No.8408 of 2024, he has filed a document to suggest that earlier also the evaluation was done in which the petitioner was said to be passed. On this ground, he submits that appropriate direction may kindly be issued. 4. Mr. Amresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the Vinoba Bhave University submits that pursuant to order dated 29.07.2024, the Examination Controller of the University by order of Vice Chancellor deputed a new examiner for re-evaluation of the answer sheet of the --2-- W.P. (C.) No. 2749 of 2024 petitioner and the name of the examiner is Deepak Kumar, Head of Department Chemistry, St. Columbus College, Hazaribagh by letter dated 07.08.2024. He submits that after re-evaluation of the answer sheet of the petitioner, the examiner has submitted the re-evaluation report before the Examination Controller, Vinoba Bhave University which is brought on record by way of filing affidavit dated 09.08.2024. He submits that in the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000 only provision is made to re-evaluate the answer sheet from the direction of the Vice Chancellor in view of Section 29 of the Jharkhand State University Act, 2000. He submits that the document contained in I.A. No.8408 of 2024 is not in his knowledge and the source of finding that document is not disclosed in the I.A. 5. In view of the above submission of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the court has gone through the materials on record and finds that after the indulgence of this Court by order dated 11.07.2024 as well as 29.07.2024, the respondent University was put on the task to satisfy the action of the university. By Order dated 11.07.2024, the University was directed to produce the answer sheet along with O.M.R. pursuant to that the said was produced in the sealed cover and looking into the said, the university was further directed by order dated 29.07.2024 to re-evaluate the answer sheet of the petitioner and on that the original answer sheet was handed over to the University. In the light of Section 29 of Jharkhand University Act, 2000, the provision of re- evaluation is there by the order of the Vice Chancellor. The document brought on record by affidavit dated 09.08.2024 clearly suggests that another examiner was appointed pursuant to the Court’s order dated --3-- W.P. (C.) No. 2749 of 2024 29.07.2024 who was the Head of the Department of Chemistry and he has re-evaluated the same and added two marks in spite of that the petitioner has not been able to pass in the Organic Chemistry. So far the document brought in the I.A. No.8408 of 2024 is concerned, the Court finds that on re-evaluation, there is no signature of any person. The peon book is annexed as next annexure and based on this the said document cannot be said to be valid one. Further source of obtaining the said re- evaluation is not disclosed and the earlier time, it was not disclosed and by the IA it has brought on record after passing two orders by this Court and in view of that the Court is not in a position to appreciate the said document brought in I.A. No.8408 of 2024. 6. 7. 8.
Decision
In view of the above, this writ petition is dismissed. Pending petition if any, is also disposed of. It is open to the petitioner to appear in the subsequent examination which is going to be held very soon as has been pointed out by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel appearing for the University. Sangam/ (Sanjay Kumar Dwivedi, J.) --4-- W.P. (C.) No. 2749 of 2024