Dismissed

Priya Mishra v. University Grant Commission

Chhattisgarh HC20 Apr 2026WA/312/2026

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Intra-court appeal challenging dismissal of writ petition seeking rounding off of marks for NET eligibility. Court found the appeal barred by limitation without condonation application, procedurally defective, and an abuse of process given prior concluded litigation and suppression of material facts. Appeal dismissed in limine with exemplary costs of Rs. 50,000/- directed to be deposited.

What the court decided

AI extract

Priya Mishra Vs University Grant Commission — Education and Admissions | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

2026:CGHC:17970-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

WA No. 312 of 2026

¶6

Priya Mishra D/o Late Sushil Kumar Mishra Aged About 31 Years Maharana Pratap Nagar, Shri Ram Park Colony, House No. D-9, Tifra Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶7

... Appellant(s)

¶8

versus

¶9

1. University Grant Commission Through Secretary, Bahadur Shah Jafar Marg, New Delhi 110002, New Delhi Delhi

¶10

2. The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Department Of Higher Education Block - 2 And 3rd Floor, Indravati Bhawan, Atal Nagar Raipur Chhattisgarh, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

¶11

3. National Testing C-20, 1a/8, Sector 62, Litk, Outreach Center Noida - 201309, Presently Address First Floor, Nsic Mdbp Building Okhla Industry Eatate, New Delhi 110020

¶12

4. Atal Bihari Bajpayee Vishwavidyalaya Through I T S Ragistar, Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh

¶13

Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date: 2026.04.22 10:30:25 +0530

¶14

...Respondent(s)

¶15

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶16

¶17

For Appellant	: Mr. Barun Kumar Mishra, Advocate.
For Respondent/State	: Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, Deputy Advocate General.
For Respondent No. 3	: Mr. P.R. Patankar, Advocate.
For Respondent No. 4	: Mr. Neeraj Choubey, Advocate.

¶18

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶19

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶20

Judgment on Board

¶21

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶22

21.04.2026

¶23

1. Heard Mr. Barun Kumar Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Prasun Bhaduri, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing, for the State, Mr. P.R. Patankar, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 3, and Mr. Neeraj Choubey, learned counsel, appearing for respondent No. 4.

¶24

2. The present intra-court appeal has been preferred by the appellant assailing the order dated 29.01.2025 passed by the learned Single Judge in WPC No. 1197 of 2019 ( Priya Mishra vs. University Grants Commission & Others ), whereby the writ petition filed by the appellant came to be dismissed on merits, in light of binding precedents of the Hon’ble Supreme Court which categorically prohibit rounding off of marks for the purpose of determining eligibility in NET examinations.

¶25

3. The appeal is listed under the category of “defaults” and has been placed before this Court in view of multiple and substantial procedural defects, as noted by the Registry.

¶26

¶27

4. The office objections disclose serious and fundamental defects, namely: non-filing of the mandatory synopsis; non-affixation of requisite Court fees; an inordinate delay of 358 days in filing the appeal without any application for condonation of delay supported by affidavit; a defective Vakalatnama containing incorrect particulars and lacking proper identification of the appellant’s signature; and failure to file fresh affidavits despite specific directions contained in the office note dated 30.03.2026. These defects are not merely technical in nature but go to the root of the matter, rendering the appeal wholly defective and not maintainable in its present form.

¶28

5. Learned counsel for the respective respondents submits that the present proceedings are nothing but a calculated and deliberate attempt to reopen a controversy which has already attained finality. The dispute, confined to re-evaluation of answer scripts and rounding off of marks, stands conclusively determined against the appellant in earlier rounds of litigation. It is specifically contended that the appellant has suppressed a material and vital fact, namely that WA No. 403/2022, arising from the same cause of action, was finally decided on 12.09.2023, whereby the judgment of the learned Single Judge was affirmed and the issue was brought to a definitive close. Such suppression, it is urged, is neither accidental nor insignificant, but a conscious attempt to mislead this Court and to secure a re-adjudication of issues which stand concluded.

¶29

6. It is further submits that the present appeal is squarely barred by the doctrine of finality and the principles of res judicata. It is pointed out that the appellant has, despite consistent failures, persisted in instituting

¶30

¶31

successive proceedings on identical grounds, all of which have been dismissed at every stage. WPC No. 312/2020 was dismissed on 20.06.2022 on merits, rejecting the claim for re-evaluation/rounding off of marks; the aforesaid writ appeal was disposed of on 12.09.2023 affirming the said judgment; REVP No. 143/2023 was dismissed on 25.01.2024 for absence of any error apparent on the face of record; MCC No. 222/2025 was dismissed on 05.03.2025 as no ground for recall or modification was made out; WPC No. 3355/2025 was dismissed on 08.07.2025 on account of suppression of material facts and being barred by res judicata; and REVP No. 219/2025 was dismissed on 10.02.2025 reiterating that the matter had already attained finality. It is thus submitted that the repeated institution of proceedings, notwithstanding such consistent findings, clearly demonstrates a deliberate and calculated abuse of the process of Court.

¶32

7. Learned counsel for the respective respondents, therefore, contends that the appellant, having failed at every stage and having suppressed material facts, is seeking to misuse the judicial process to endlessly reagitate a concluded issue. Such conduct, it is submitted, not only undermines the sanctity and finality of judicial determinations but also results in a gross wastage of valuable judicial time. The present appeal, therefore, deserves to be dismissed in limine .

¶33

8. Having considered the submissions advanced and upon perusal of the record, this Court finds considerable force in the objections raised by learned counsel for the respondents. The appeal has been filed in a most casual manner, without curing the fundamental defects pointed out by the Registry and without any regard to the settled principles governing

¶34

¶35

maintainability. The conduct of the appellant in repeatedly invoking the jurisdiction of this Court on the same cause of action, while suppressing prior adjudications, reflects a clear abuse of the process of law. The appeal is not only hopelessly barred by limitation without any explanation, but is also procedurally defective and substantively devoid of merit.

¶36

9. Accordingly, this Court has no hesitation in holding that the present appeal is wholly frivolous, misconceived, and an abuse of the process of Court. The same is, accordingly, dismissed in limine .

¶37

10. Considering the repeated and unwarranted invocation of the jurisdiction of this Court by the appellant, resulting in unnecessary consumption of valuable judicial time, this Court deems it appropriate to impose exemplary and deterrent costs. The appellant is directed to deposit a sum of Rs. 50,000/- with the Registry of this Court within a period of one month from today. Upon such deposit, the said amount shall be transmitted to the Government Special School for Visual and Hearing Impaired, Tifra, District Bilaspur (C.G.).

¶38

11. In the event of failure to deposit the aforesaid amount within the stipulated period, the same shall be recovered from the appellant as arrears of land revenue, in accordance with law.

¶39

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶40

Brijmohan

Priya Mishra v. University Grant Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

Priya Mishra v. University Grant Commission

Case brief

What is this about?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Divisional Secretary, Bhartiya Postal Employees Association (Group -C) Durg Division Vs Union of India

Smt. Anita Sinha Vs Johar Tekam

Aman Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mangal Ram Usendi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Hasdeo Aranya Bachao Sangharsh Samiti Vs Union of India

Vishnu Prasad Dhidhi Vs State of Chhattisgarh