Disposed

Shri. Rohit S/O Parasram Bagde, Nagpur v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University Thr Registrar, Nagpur

Bombay HC25 Feb 2016WP/525/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court, finding that the petitioner was denied passing due to examiner misconduct and unattributed marks, directed the University to reissue the marksheet showing 33 marks (pass), permit simultaneous appearance for third and fourth semesters, and impose costs and recoveries against the University and officials.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner declared passed; University directed to issue corrected marksheet (33 marks), allow simultaneous exam appearance, pay Rs.15,000 costs, and recover Rs.7,500 each from examiner and revaluer.

Shri. Rohit S/O Parasram Bagde, Nagpur Vs… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

25.2WP.525.16

¶2

¶3

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

¶4

WRIT PETITION NO. 525 OF 2016. (Shri Rohit Parasram Bagde .vs. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University & another)

¶5

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

¶6

Mr. U.P. Dable, Advocate for petitioner, Mr. S.P. Bhandarkar, Advocate for respondent no.1, Mr. W. Mathews, Advocate for respondent no.2.

¶7

CORAM : B.R. GAVAI & P.N. DESHMUKH, JJ. DATED : FEBRUARY 25, 2016.

¶8

Taking into consideration the unusual circumstances in the present matter, we were required to pass an unusual order on 16.2.2016. We are of the view that on account of callous and casual attitude on the part of the examiners as well as the persons who had done revaluation, the petitioner was unnecessarily required to approach this Court. Taking into consideration the fact that for question no. 10 six marks were shown and for question no. 6 no marks were shown and as a matter of fact there was no valuation of question no. 10, we had called the Controller of Examinations in the Court. We had requested him to get the paper revaluated by two independent valuers. We had also directed that six marks should be shifted to question no. 4.

¶9

Dr. Neeraj Khati, the Controller of Examinations is personally present in the Court. He has brought the valuation

¶10

25.2WP.525.16

¶11

¶12

report in the sealed cover. Upon perusal of the valuation, it could be seen that the petitioner has been granted ten marks for question no. 10. The total is, therefore, 33.

¶13

It is not in dispute that the petitioner has passed in all other papers. It is also not in dispute that the petitioner would be at least entitled to two marks as grace marks. In that view of the matter, the petitioner would have to be declared as passed in the paper of “Quantitative Techniques”.

¶14

Dr. Neeraj Khati, the Controller of Examinations, who is personally present in the Court, states that corrected mark-list would be issued to the petitioner within a period of one week from today.

¶15

Taking into consideration that on account of a cavalier attitude of the respondents, the petitioner was deprived of appearing in the third semester, we direct the University to allow the petitioner to simultaneously appear for third and fourth semester. We further direct the respondent no.2 college to complete the necessary formalities as required by the University so as to enable the petitioner to appear for ensuing third and fourth semester examinations together.

¶16

We also impose costs of Rs.15,000/- to be payable to the petitioner. The said costs be paid by the University to the petitioner within a period of one week from today. We further clarify that in addition to the action that the University proposes to take against the examiner and the re-valuer, the University shall recover Rs.7,500/- each from the examiner and the revaluer on account of whose callousness and casualness, the petitioner has suffered.

¶17

25.2WP.525.16

¶18

¶19

With the above observations and directions, the writ petition stands disposed of.

¶20

Judge Judge J.

Shri. Rohit S/O Parasram Bagde, Nagpur v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University Thr Registrar, Nagpur

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shri. Rohit S/O Parasram Bagde, Nagpur v. Rashtrasant Tukdoji Maharaj Nagpur University Thr Registrar, Nagpur

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

Siddharth Kawduji Onkar and Others Vs the Education Officer (Sec.), Zilla Parishad, Nagpur and Others

Dr. Sanajy S/O. Shrikisanrao Lokhande Vs Central Council of Indian Medicine Thr Secretary, New Delhi and Others

Mohammad Zahid S/O Mohd. Abid Vs Sanjaysinh Gautam and Others

Wasudeo S/O Yadavrao Khobragade Vs C.D. Dahadkar Additional Collector and Incharge C.E.O.,Z.P.

Sushant Gajananrao Barahate Vs Govt. of Maharashtra Thorugh Its Chie Secretary, Mumbai and Others

Suo Moto Vs the Principal Secretary (Home) Department, Mantralaya Mumbai and Others