Single Judge dismissed this review application urging re-argument on merits, finding no error apparent on the face of the record to reconsider the earlier judgment on education exam revaluation.
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 JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
DATED : 10.07.2015
CORAM
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI AND THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.VENUGOPAL
Review Application No.96 of 2015
C.Porchilai
rep by her father and natural Guardian S.Chitrarasu
Vs.
The Director of Government Examinations, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
.. Respondent
This review application is preferred under Order 47 Rule 1 of Code of Civil Procedure read with Section 114 of CPC to review the judgment made in W.A.No.752 of 2015 dated 19.6.2015.
For Applicant : Mr.G.Sankaran For Respondent : Mr.K.Karthikeyan, GA
ORDER
(The Order of the Court was made by SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J. )
This review application is filed by the appellant, seeking review of the order dated 19th June, 2015, whereunder, upholding the order dated 10th March,
2
2015 in W.P.No.4789 of 2015, passed by the learned Single Judge, the writ appeal was dismissed.
2 The petitioner / appellant sought a direction to the respondent to revalue the answer book in the subject Biology. The appellant was heard at length. After having considered all contentions raised by the appellant, the appeal was dismissed.
3 In this review application, the review applicant reiterates the same argument, which was considered and adverted to, under the pretext that there is an error apparent on the face of the record. In fact, the present applicant is an attempt to re-argue the entire matter on merit. According to the review applicant, there was no revaluation of the answer book of Biology paper and if there was revaluation as pleaded by the respondent, there should have been increase in the marks awarded to the applicant and as such, the second examination of the answer sheet was wrongly taken as revaluation.
4 Without going into the arguments on merit, which had already been considered at length in the appeal, we do not find any reason to reconsider the judgment dated 19th June, 2015 passed in W.A.No.752 of 2015. Accordingly, the review application is dismissed. No costs.
(S.K.A., J.) (M.V., J.)
10.07.2015
Index : Yes/No vvk
To
3
The Director of Government Examinations, DPI Campus, College Road, Chennai-600 006.
SATISH K. AGNIHOTRI, J.
4
and M.VENUGOPAL, J.
vvk
Review Application No.96 of 2015
10.07.2015
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should exercise its discretionary power to review the dismissal of the writ appeal despite no error apparent on the face of the record.
C. Porchilai
The Director of Government Examinations, DPI Campus
Satish K. Agnihotri
M. Venugopal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
