Ms. Ammu Teresa v. The Vice Chancellor, Savitribai Phule Pune University And ANR

41-wp-11782-2015.doc

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

CIVIL APPELLATTE JURISDICTION WRIT PETITION NO.11782 OF 2015 Ms. Ammu Teresa

...Petitioner

vs.

The Vice Chancellor, Savitribai Phule Pune University and Another

...Respondents

Mr. S. Kulkarni, for the Petitioner Mr. R. Anbhule, for Respondent No. 1.

CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR & PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.

DATE :

DECEMBER 16, 2016 P.C.:

.

Parties through their counsel.

2.

Through this Petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the Petitioner is seeking direction to Respondent-University to re-assess the answer sheet of the Petitioner pertaining to Second Year L.L.B examination.

3.

According to the Petitioner, the marks for answering question No. 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e) have not been given in respect of all the answers. The case of the Petitioner, is that he had answered the question No. 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e) whereas the marks were given only to the answer of question No. 2(e).

Vishal Parekar 1/2

41-wp-11782-2015.doc 4.

Learned counsel for Respondent-University has pointed out that in fact in the bottom of the answer sheet, the Moderator has given 3 marks one each for answer to question c, d and e of question No. 2. In the circumstances, it is his contention that the grievance of the Petitioner that no marks have been given in respect of the answers to question No. 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e) is not correct. He also pointed out that in the sheet, the marks have been entered in respect of each question. According to the learned counsel for the University initially the examiner had awarded one mark which the Moderator has modified and given 3 marks i.e. one for each. 5.

Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the parties, we are of the view that the contention of the Petitioner that the marks for question No. 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e) have not been awarded cannot be accepted. In our view, 3 marks in all are given for answers to the question No. 2(c), 2(d) and 2(e). Therefore, question of re-assessing the answer sheet of the Petitioner does not arise. 6.

In view of the aforesaid, the Petition stands dismissed. (PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.) Vishal Parekar 2/2