Dismissed

Rajshree Neelam Tukral v. Secretary, Maharashtra States Board of Technical Education and Anr.

Bombay HC27 Jul 2016WP/8658/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The petitioner challenged her failure in an academic subject, citing sympathy. The Bench dismissed the petition, holding that sympathy does not override established academic rules regarding minimum marks and rejection of revaluation findings where no statutory or institutional exception applies.

What did the court decide?

None granted; the writ petition is dismissed.

Rajshree Neelam Tukral Vs Secretary, Maharashtra… — Writ and Judicial Review | Bombay HC (2016)

¶1

suresh

¶2

905-WP-8658.2016.doc

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.8658 OF 2016

¶4

Rajshree Neelam Tukral .... Petitioner Vs. Secretary, Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education & Anr. .... Respondents

¶5

Mr. A.A. Garge i/by Mr. Jitendra H. Oak for the Petitioner. Mr. R.V. Govilkar for Respondent No.1. Ms Sushma Bhende, AGP, for Respondent No.2.

¶6

CORAM: S.C. DHARMADHIKARI & DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, JJ.

¶7

DATE : JULY 27, 2016

¶8

P.C:

¶9

We have heard Mr. Garge, appearing for the petitioner.

¶10

With his assistance we have perused the entire

¶11

petition carefully and together with the annexures. We cannot

¶12

grant any relief only on sympathy. Sympathy does not displace law and particularly the rules in academic cases.

Page 1 of 3

905-WP-8658.2016.doc

suresh

The petitioner's result/statement of marks at page 16, admittedly, reveals that in one subject - Mobile Computing - she obtained 28 marks, which is much below the minimum mark out of 100 required for passing in the subject.

¶17

As a result of this, she was declared failed. The petitioner may have attempted re-assessment or revaluation, but in that as well there has to be a difference of 10% and more. Meaning thereby, 10% of the marks earlier granted have to be obtained in the revaluation. Admittedly, the petitioner does not get that 10%. Further admittedly, the petitioner cannot be given any grace mark so long as, on her own showing, she fails to obtain 30 marks. If the minimum marks for passing in the subject are 40 and on revaluation the petitioner had obtained 30 marks, there is no change in her result. These are the rules made by the academic bodies and we do not find anything arbitrary or mala fide about them. They are not made or targeted at any particular student nor there is an intention to go on failing students indiscriminately. In the circumstances, we do not find

¶18

Page 2 of 3

¶19

suresh 905-WP-8658.2016.doc that this is a fit case for interference in writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is dismissed. (DR. SHALINI PHANSALKAR-JOSHI, J.) (S.C. DHARMADHIKARI, J.)

Rajshree Neelam Tukral v. Secretary, Maharashtra States Board of Technical Education and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajshree Neelam Tukral v. Secretary, Maharashtra States Board of Technical Education and Anr.

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

Smt. Kusum Rajaram Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Anr.

Smt. Kusum Rajaram Suryawanshi Vs the State of Maharashtra, through Secretary, Dept of Co-Operation Marketing and Textile and Anr.

The Commissioner of Central Excise and Service Tax, Kolhapur Commissionerate, Vs Sahyadri Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Limited

Sanjay Rajaram Babaria (Handicapped) Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Development Authority and Anr.

Sonal Nathram Ajna Vs Maharashtra Housing and Area Developement Authority and Anr.

Aquib Javed Kadri Vs State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.