Dismissed

Amrita Premnarayan Sharma v. State of Mah., through Secretary, Dept. of Higher and Tech. Edu., Mumbai and Another

Bombay HC26 Mar 2015WP/501/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged the denial of marks in a university English exam, arguing she answered a question on sonnet introducers correctly despite expert rejection. The High Court held that academic disputes require expert opinions, found the university's expert correct with no mala fides, and dismissed the writ petition.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition rejected. No costs.

Amrita Premnarayan Sharma Vs State of Mah., through… — Service and Employment | Bombay HC (2015)

¶1

2603wp501.15.odt

¶2

1/3

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY NAGPUR BENCH AT NAGPUR

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 501 OF 2015

¶5

(Amrita Premnarayan Sharma Vs. State of Maharashtra & another)

¶6

- - - - -- - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders

¶7

- - - - Shri S. A. Chaudhari, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri A. M. Deshpande, A.G.P. for respondent No.1. Shri R. N. Ghuge, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶8

CORAM : B. P. DHARMADHIKARI AND S. B. SHUKRE, JJ. DATED : 26 MARCH, 2015

¶9

The petitioner secured total 222 marks out of 350 in subject English. The minimum marks to be scored were 224. Submissions that as she has answered question No.9 in Paper-II correctly, marks need to be given even for that answer and with those marks, she would have cleared the cut of line.

¶10

Advocate Shri Chaudhari invites attention to question No.9 to show that it gives four options and option (A), which mentions the name of Surrey has been chosen by the petitioner. He has also invited our attention to a chapter with name “The art of Sonnet” written by Stephen Burt David Mikies placed at Annexure-IV with the petition. According to him, said option is found in the text as, “Sir, Thomas Wyatt and

¶11

2603wp501.15.odt 2/3 Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey, as the persons who brought the sonnet to England”. According to him, as mentioned in said chapter, Henry Howard, the Earl of Surrey brought the sonnet to England and that name is given as one of the options (first option) against question No.9. He, therefore, states that question No.9 had two correct options, i.e. option-(A) the name of Surrey and option-(D) the name of Wyatt. Advocate Shri Ghuge for respondent No.2University submits that after receipt of the representation on these lines from the petitioner, the matter was referred to an expert and the expert has found that it is Wyatt, who introduced the Sonnet in England. He further submits that therefore the petitioner is not entitled to get marks for question No.9. Learned A.G.P. submits that the dispute is between respondent No.2 and the petitioner.

¶12

The portion of chapter on which Advocate Shri Chaudhari placed reliance shows that Wyatt and Surrey were two chieftains who having travalled into Italy mended the native English roughness. However, thereafter, it is added Wyatt developed the couplet ending, a device that gives his sonnets an Epigrammatic

¶13

2603wp501.15.odt 3/3 sting. This text describes thus. : “ ......he yet looks back to Petrachan tradition. A brusque courier who served Henry VIII, Wyatt depicts complex social settings as well as scenes of solitary lament.... ” Thus, this chapter also emphasizes the role played by Wyatt only. At this stage Advocate Shri Chaudhari invited our attention to the Broadview Anthology of British Literature, 2^nd edition, Volume 2 page 121 to urge that as mentioned therein in case of Surrey, there were few more writing in the Petrarchan manner and they were not published until 1557, but they circulated in manuscript. According to him, therefore, this author has given a lead role to Henry Howard, Earl of Surrey.

¶14

It is apparent that in such academic matters, we have to go by an opinion of expert. The opinion obtained by the University does not appears to be erroneous. There are no allegations of mala fides. As such, in limited scope available to us in writ jurisdiction, we find no case made out.

¶15

Writ petition is rejected. No costs.

¶16

wwl

¶17

JUDGE JUDGE

Amrita Premnarayan Sharma v. State of Mah., through Secretary, Dept. of Higher and Tech. Edu., Mumbai and Another

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amrita Premnarayan Sharma v. State of Mah., through Secretary, Dept. of Higher and Tech. Edu., Mumbai and Another

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

Akola Shahar Truck Owners Ass. Thr. Its President Haji Nawajkhan Mohd. Karimkhan and 15 Others Vs State of Mah., Thr. Chief Secretary, Home Dept. and 3 Others

Baljindarsingh Harbansingh Jaggi and 44 Others Vs State of Mah., through Chief Secretary, Home Dept. and 3 Others

The Samata Sahakari Bank, Nagpur through Its Authorised Officer, Chandu S/O Marotrao Gharade Vs the Learned District Magistrate, Nagpur and 4 Others

Shri Ashok S/O Wasudeo Lanje Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Its Secretary, Dept. of Co-Op. Mumbai and 4 Others

Jitendragir Ghyanshyamgir Goswami Vs State of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary, Revenue Dept. and 2 Others

Jaswantrai Kanahiyalal Thavani and Another Vs State of Mah., Thr. Its Secretary, Revenue Dept. and 2 Others