The petitioner sought production of original records alleging tampering with mark sheets. The Court dismissed the petition, noting the seven-year delay and lack of evidence to challenge the University’s display of certificates.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Court No. - 36
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 10783 of 2020
Petitioner :- Akash Singh Respondent :- Bundelkhand University And 3 Others Counsel for Petitioner :- Anurag Bhatt Counsel for Respondent :- Rohit Pandey
Hon'ble Ashwani Kumar Mishra,J.
This petition has been filed for a direction upon the respondent University to produce the original records of the petitioner for the B.Sc. (Computer Science) session 2010 before this Court. Perusal of the record would go to show that petitioner had earlier filed a Writ Petition No. 31848 of 2017, which came to be disposed of vide following orders passed on 26.7.2017:-
The petitioner claims to have appeared in all the six semester examinations of B.Sc. Computer Science held by Bundelkhand University, Jhansi. According to him, he has been issued a marks sheet of third and forth semesters only. The petitioner is stated to have represented to the authorities to issue to him the marks sheet of all the semesters. Since no action has been taken by the University on the said application, the instant writ petition has been filed.
Sri Sanjay Kumar Mishra holding brief of Sri B. D. Pandey, appearing for the respondent-university states that the Examination Controller will examine the grievance of the petitioner and will take remedial action.
Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of with liberty to petitioner to approach the second respondent with a certified copy of this order and a fresh representation ventilating all the grievances and in which event, the second respondent shall take remedial action in accordance with law. In case the second respondent comes to the conclusion that the petitioner is not entitled for issuance of marks sheet of any particular semester, he shall pass a speaking order in that regard within next three weeks from the date of receipt of the representation.
A contempt petition followed thereafter in which also orders were passed by this court. The University ultimately proceeded to issue statement of marks for the respective sessions. In the 2nd semester he was shown absent in the practical examination whereas in the 5th semester he had a back paper. It is much thereafter that the petitioner has filed the present writ petition.
While entertaining the writ petition time was granted to learned counsel for the University to obtain instructions. Sri Rohit Pandy, learned counsel appearing for the University states that in terms of the orders passed by this Court requisite information has already been furnished to the petitioner. It is further stated that as per the prevalent practice the answer sheets are not
retained for so long and are weeded out after six months of the completion of the Examination.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner's mark-sheet has been changed and serial numbers allotted to him have been given to someone else.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials brought on record. It is admitted that petitioner had appeared during the Academic Sessions 2010-13. It is after expiry of four years that he approached this Court and a direction came to be issued. This was done in the year 2017. No challenge was made to the decision of the University. The petitioner has not been able to disclose any basis to assert that serial number of his mark-sheet has been changed and allotted to others. The University has clearly disclosed in its reply under R.T.I. Act that certificates have been issued to petitioner upon his serial numbers. There is no material brought on record which may generate any reasonable doubt for the Court to investigate the matter any further. So far as production of records is concerned it would not possible to issue such a direction specially after expiry of nearly 7 years of the course. Writ petition lacks merits and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.7.2020 Abhishek Singh
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the petitioner is entitled to a direction for producing original records after a delay of seven years.
Whether there is any material to generate reasonable doubt about the authenticity of the petitioner’s marksheets.
Akash Singh
Bundelkhand University
Ashwani Kumar Mishra
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
