Anil Kumar, J.@mdashHeard Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner, Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, on behalf of the respondent No. 2 and learned Standing counsel.
2. With the consent of the counsel for the parties who are present today, the writ petition is finally disposed of at the admission stage.
3. Facts in brief as submitted by Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner that the petitioners are regular students of B.Sc. (Agriculture) 4th year course in the institution known as Baba Bariyaar Shah Mahavidyalay, Bharkharey, Tehsil Lambua, Sultanpur (hereinafter referred to as the Institution) affiliated to
Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh Universtiy, Faizabad. They had appeared in the said examination but awarded less marks in the subject namely Field Crop Husbandry although they have been awarded good marks in other subjects in the said examination. In this regard he relied on the averments as made in paragraph No. 15 of the writ petition which is reproduced hereinbelow:
�That petitioners are meritorious students and have passed first, second and third year through out first division. In fourth year also even failed in one particular paper petitioner No. 1 secures 64.5 %, petitioner No. 2 secures 68 %, petitioner No. 3 secures 62.16.5 %, petitioner No. 4 secures 60 %, petitioner No. 5 secures 63.83 %, petitioner No. 6 secures 62 %.�
4. In view of the abovesaid background, present writ petition has been filed by the petitioners before this Court with following relief:
(I) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 to re evaluate the answer books of the petitioners related to the paper namely ''Field Crop Husbandry'' of B.Sc. (Agriculture) 4th year, in the interest of justice.
(II) to issue a writ of mandamus commanding the opposite party No. 2 to produce the relevant answer books of the petitioners before this Hon''ble Court so that just and proper order may be passed in the interest of justice.
5. Sri M.P. Yadav, learned counsel for the petitioner in support of his argument initially relied on the judgment of the Apex Court passed in the case of H.P. Public Service Commission. v. Mukesh Thakur, 2010 (6) SCC 759.
6. However, later on he fairly admits that in the University i.e. Dr. Ram Manohar Lohia Awadh Universtiy, Faizabad to which institution is affiliated in which the petitioners are studying, there is neither any rule nor any provision for reevaluation of the answer books of students. Accordingly, a request has been made by him that the petitioners may be permitted to make an application for scrutiny of their answer books in the subject known as Field Crop Husbandry; further for redressal of their other grievances arising out of the matter in question they may also be permitted to represent the competent authority.
7. Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 2 has no objection to the abovesaid request made on behalf of the petitioner but he submits that they may be directed to submit the application for scrutiny after fulfilling all the necessary conditions prescribed for the said purpose by the University.
8. I have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the record.
9. So far as the matter in respect to the reevaluation of answer books by the University in question is concerned as it is not disputed by the counsel for the parties that there is neither any rule nor any provision for the said purpose. So, in view of the law as laid down the Apex Court in the case of Sahiti and others v. Chancellor, Dr. N.T.R. University of Health Sciences and others, (2009) 1 SCC 599, The Secretary, West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education v. Ayan Das and others, (2007) 8 SCC 242, Pramod Kumar Srivastava v. Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 and Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda, (2004) 13 SCC 383 if there is no provision for revaluation in the rules, then the court cannot order for revaluation so the relief as claimed in this regard cannot be granted to the petitioner in the instant case.
10. However, as prayed by the learned counsel for the petitioner in respect to scrutiny in the subject (Field Crop Husbandry) in which they had appeared in B.Sc. (Agriculture) 4th year course as regular students, the interest of justice will subserve if the petitioners are�� permitted to make a fresh representation before respondent No. 2 within a period of two weeks from today annexing all the relevant documents and materials in support of their case requesting for the scrutiny and other grievances which arises out in respect to the matter in dispute for redresal then in that circumstances and after receiving the same O.P. No. 2 shall consider and dispose the said representation, if any, made by the petitioners in accordance with law in case petitioners fulfill all the necessary formalities required for the said purpose as submitted by Dr. Ravi Kumar Mishra, counsel for the respondent No. 2 within a further period of three weeks thereafter.
11. It is clarified that this Court has not adjudicated the claim of the petitioners on merit.
12. With the above observations, the writ petitoin is disposed of finally.
