Dismissed

Bhavya Sinha v. Shri Vile Parle Kevlani Mandal and 2 Ors.

Bombay HC11 Oct 2018WP/3084/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This court dismissed a writ petition challenging an examination result in Engineering Mathematics. The petitioner secured insufficient marks to clear the subject, which barred admission to the fifth semester. The court rejected the plea for quashing, emphasizing that courts must be slow to interfere with academic evaluation and that finality in valuation is necessary.

What the court decided

AI extract

Bhavya Sinha Vs Shri Vile Parle Kevlani Mandal and 2… — Education and Admissions | Bombay HC (2018)

¶1

(922)-WPL-3158-18.doc

¶2

BDPSPS

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION

¶4

WRIT PETITION (L) NO.3158 OF 2018

¶5

Bhavya Sinha ..Petitioner Versus Shri. Vile Parle Kevlani Mandal, Mumbai and others ..Respondents

¶6

Mr. Mihir Desai, Senior counsel I/by Ms. Devyani H. Kulkarni and Pravin Singhal, Advocate for the Petitioner.

¶7

Ms. Manorama Mohanty a/w Mr. A. P. Singh I/by M/s. S. K. Srivastav and Company, Advocate for Respondent Nos.1 to 3.

¶8

CORAM: B. R. GAVAI &

¶9

M. S. KARNIK, JJ. DATE: 11^th OCTOBER, 2018

¶10

P.C.:-

¶11

1] Petitioner has approached this Court praying for quashing and setting aside the result given by Respondents to the Petitioner in the

¶12

subject of Engineering Mathematics-I re-examination paper in which

¶13

Petitioner has secured 44 marks out of 100.

¶14

2] Petitioner, who had appeared for First Semester Examination,

¶15

did not clear the subject of Engineering Mathematics-I. Unless the

¶16

1/3

¶17

(922)-WPL-3158-18.doc

¶18

student clears all subjects of First Semester, he/she is not entitled to for admission to Fifth Semester. As such, the Petitioner again appeared for examination for the said subject held in the month of May, 2017. Petitioner secured 14 out of 30 marks in the internal examination and 27 marks in external examination. Petitioner has applied for revaluation to Respondent No.3 twice. In the first revaluation, marks were increased to 29 and in the second revaluation, it again came down to 27. According to the Petitioner, Petitioner has sent her answer-sheet for examination to external expert and he found that the Petitioner was entitled to 4 more marks.

¶19

3] Even if the evaluation, as is done privately by the Petitioner, is accepted, then also the Petitioner does not get qualifying marks. If 4 marks are added to 27, the marks would become 31. If 14 marks granted in internal examination are added to the said 31 marks, it would become 45. According to Rules, student is entitled to maximum 3 grace marks, that would take the total to 48. It could thus be seen that even if evaluation, as is done by the Petitioner's private expert, is accepted still the Petitioner does not get qualifying

¶20

2/3

¶21

(922)-WPL-3158-18.doc

¶22

50 marks. This is apart from the fact that in the matters pertaining to academic examinations, this Court should be slow in interfering with the decisions of experts. At some stage, finality in valuation and revaluation has to be accepted. If the Court permits students to approach this Court and seek revaluation in each and every matter, the Court would become a super controller over academic matters of Universities and Institutions.

¶23

4] In that view of the matter, we are not inclined to entertain the present Petition. Petition is rejected.

¶24

(M. S. KARNIK, J.)

¶25

(B. R. GAVAI, J.)

¶26

3/3

Bhavya Sinha v. Shri Vile Parle Kevlani Mandal and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Bhavya Sinha v. Shri Vile Parle Kevlani Mandal and 2 Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Shivas Autocomp Vs State of Maharashtra and 2 Ors.

Manav Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. and Another Vs Slum Rehabilitation Authhority and 4 Others

Santosh Shankerappa Umarani Vs the State of Maharashtra through Secretary and Ors.

Shri. Pawar Sharad Baburao Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary, and Ors.

Shri. Naik Dattatraya Maruti and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.

Sou. Patil Sarika Narendra and Anr. Vs the State of Maharashtra through the Secretary and Anr.