High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition under Article 226 seeking second revaluation of answer script for Engineering Mathematics. Court held university regulations only mandate third valuer involvement if difference between original and revaluation exceeds 15 marks.
Petition rejected; direction for second revaluation not granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF APRIL 2014
BEFORE
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANAND BYRAREDDY
WRIT PETITION No.19387 OF 2014 (EDN-EX)
BETWEEN: Tiyasha Ghosh Daughter of Sanjiban Ghosh, Aged about 21 years, Residing at No.59, 5th Cross, Kumar Girls Hostel, Pai Layout, Hulimavu, B.G. Road, Bangalore – 560 076. …PETITIONER
(By Shri. Lakshmanachar K.V., Advocate ) AND: The Registrar (Evaluation) Visvesvaraya Technological University, Gnana Sangama, Machhe, Belgaum – 590 018.
…RESPONDENT
2
This Writ Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India praying to direct the respondent to consider the representation dated 1.3.2014 vide Annexure-D to order for the revaluation of the answer script of the petitioner in respect of Engineering Mathematics and semester with Registration No.1AM11CS091.
This Writ Petition coming on for Orders this day, the court made the following:
O R D E R
The petition is filed seeking a second revaluation in
respect of the ‘Engineering Mathematics-2’ subject, on the footing that the Regulations do provide for such a second revaluation.
On a perusal of the relevant Regulation, it would only be in cases where on a revaluation, if the difference between the original valuation and the revaluation is in excess of ‘15’ , that it is necessary that the entire paper be revalued by a third valuer. This will be a circumstance, which could be pressed into service by the petitioner, if it is his case that there was revaluation and the difference was only ‘8’ marks. In the
3
opinion of this court, therefore, the question of seeking further
revaluation will not arise.
The petition is rejected.
Sd/-
JUDGE
nv
3 issues framed by the court
Whether petitioner is entitled to seek a second revaluation of answer script under university regulations.
Whether circumstances existed requiring revaluation by a third valuer given the difference in marks.
Whether writ petition challenging rejection of revaluation prayer ought to be allowed.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Tiyasha Ghosh
The Registrar (Evaluation), Visvesvaraya Technological University
Anand Byrareddy
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
