Chandra Prabhakar v. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University And ORS
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No. 1470 of 2017 =================================================== Chandra Prabhakar, aged about 21 years, Son of Ranjeet Singh, resident of Village- Parasanbigha, P.O. Tope, P.S. Shahajahanpur, DistrictPatna. .... .... Petitioner.
Versus
1. The Vice Chancellor, Patna University, Ashok Rajpath, Patna.
2. The Registrar, Patna University, Ashok Rajpath, Patna.
3. The Controller of Examination, Patna University, Ashok Rajpath, Patna.
4. The Principal, B.N. College, Ashok Rajpath, Patna.
5. The State of Bihar, through the Principal Secretary, Education Department, Bikas Bhawan, Bailey Road, Patna. .... Respondents. =================================================== Appearance :
For the Petitioners : Mr. Dilip Kumar, Adv. For the Patna University: Mr. Digvijay Singh, Adv. For the State : Mr. Virendra Kumar, AC to SC-13. =================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE DR. JUSTICE RAVI RANJAN ORAL JUDGMENT Date: 06-03-2017 Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.
Through, this writ petition, the petitioner seeks reevaluation of his English paper answer book for the examination conducted in April, 2016 for passing B.Sc. Part-I. At the time of hearing, the sole ground taken by the petitioner is that Annexure-P/2 which is the copy of the answersheet does not indicate that the question no. 2 was marked and nothing is stated at the relevant page. The same argument is advanced with respect to the question nos. 3 and 4 also.
Patna High Court CWJC No.1470 of 2017 dt.06-03-2017 It appears from the answer-sheet, as contained in Annexure-P/2, that marking has not been done where the answer has been written but in the first page of the answer paper book zero marks have been given with respect to question no. 2 and 2 marks have given with respect to question no. 3 and 1 marks have been entered with respect to question no. 4. It also appears that the answers were examined by the examiner and marking has been done on the first page with respect to question nos. 2, 3 and 4. In my view, the marks should have been reflected at the place where the answer has been written by the petitioner but even in the absence of that, since the marks have been entered in the first page, this Court does not find it a fit case warranting interference.
Accordingly, this writ petition stands dismissed. (Dr. Ravi Ranjan, J.) Vikash/- AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE NA Uploading Date 10.03.2017 Transmission Date NA