Writ petition filed challenging rejection of admission complaint. High Court rejected petition upholding lower authority's objective assessment and marking procedure without interference.
Petition rejected.
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.
1
FARAD CONTINUATION SHEET No.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
APPELLATE SIDE, BENCH AT AURANGABAD
WRIT PETITION NO.2132 OF 2012
Office Notes, Office Court's or Judge's orders
Memoranda of Coram,
appearances, Court's Coram: B. R. Gavai, and
orders or directions Sunil P. Deshmukh, JJ.
and the Registrar's
orders.Date: 13.03.2012
Sunil P. Deshmukh, JJ.
Shri D.Y. Nandedkar, Advocate, for Petitioner
Shri D.R.Kale, AGP, for Resp. No.1 - State.
1.We see no reason to interfere in the
well reasoned order dated 20.1.2012 passed by
Respondent No.2, rejecting the complaint of
the present petitioner. The said authority
has found that even on the basis of objective
assessment, Respondent No. 4 had got more
marks than the petitioner.
2.Though the petitioner secured 6.25 marks
and Respondent No.4 secured 6.75 marks, it
appears that marks of Respondent No. 4 were
rounded up to 7. It can thus be seen that
Respondent No. 4 is found in more
2
advantageous position because of rounding up
of her marks although both, the petitioner
and Respondent No. 4 were on the same
pedestal.
3. Hence, Petition is rejected.
(Sunil P. Deshmukh, J.) (B.R. Gavai, J.)
pnd/wp-2132.12
Petitioner
State
Sunil P. Deshmukh
B. R. Gavai
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court