Disposed

Kailash Chand v. State of U P and 3 Others

Allahabad HC17 May 2018WRIC/11542/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court observed that the University mechanically awarded zero marks without evaluation in the petitioner's Company Law exam. The Court directed the University to re-evaluate the answer script by a subject expert within one month if the petitioner deposits Rs. 5000 as examiner fees.

What did the court decide?

Directing the University to evaluate the petitioner's answer script by a subject expert within one month conditional on a fee deposit of Rs. 5000.

Kailash Chand Vs State of U P and 3 Others — Education and Admissions | Allahabad HC (2018)

¶1

Court No. - 19 Case :- WRIT - C No. - 11542 of 2018 Petitioner :- Kailash Chand Respondent :- State Of U P And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Umesh Singh,Praveen Kumar Shukla Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,Vivek Verma

¶2

Hon'ble Manoj Kumar Gupta,J.

¶3

The instant petition has been filed with the allegation that the respondent University has mechanically proceeded to award zero marks to the petitioner in Company Law in L.L.B. Part V Examination. According to the petitioner, actual evaluation was not carried out or else he would have obtained at least some marks.

¶4

Having regard to the said submission, direction was issued to the respondent University to produce the original answer script of the petitioner relating to Company Law paper. In compliance of the said order, the answer book has been produced and a perusal whereof reveals that the examiner has mechanically awarded zero marks to the petitioner in all the answers. It is evident from a bare perusal of the answer book that actual evaluation has not been carried out and thus, prima facie, the contention of the petitioner appears to have force.

¶5

Since in the eyes of law, there is no evaluation and, therefore, this Court directs the University to carry out evaluation of the answer script of the petitioner relating to Company Law of L.L.B. Part V by a subject expert.

¶6

Sri Vivek Verma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the University states that the aforesaid exercise shall be undertaken within a period of one month and he further states that consequential action will be taken accordingly. He further submits that the petitioner should be directed to deposit atleast Rs.5000/- as fees to be paid to the examiner, to which learned counsel for the petitioner has no objection.

¶7

Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of by providing that in case the petitioner deposits Rs.5000/- with the Finance Officer and moves application before the Controller of Examination alongwith evidence showing deposit of Rs.5000/-, he shall get the copy evaluated by a subject expert within one month and shall take consequential action accordingly.

¶8

(Manoj Kumar Gupta, J)

¶9

Order Date :- 17.5.2018/SL

Kailash Chand v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kailash Chand v. State of U P and 3 Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

C/M, Chandra Shekhar Azad Vidyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

Pradeep Kumar Goswami and 16 Others Vs State of U P and 4 Others

C/M R.S. Mahavidhyalaya and Another Vs State of U.P. and 2 Others

C/M Bharat Sewak Samaj Inter College Vs State of U.P.

C/M Sarayu Prasad Higher Bal Vidya Mandir and Another Vs State of U.P. and 4 Others

Vinay Yadav Vs Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University Agra and 2 Others