Vadan Kavinder Harjindersingh v. Maharashtra State Board Of Technical Education, Mumbai Thr. Director

2023:BHC-NAG:16126-DB 4 WP-5282-2023

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.

WRIT PETITION NO.5282 OF 2023 [Vadan Kavinder Harjindersingh ..V/s.. Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education and Anr.] ___________________________________________________________________________________ Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, appearances, Court's orders of directions Court's or Judge's order and Registrar's orders.

Shri Ashwin Deshpande and Shri V. D. Waghmare, Advocates for Petitioner. Shri A. D. Mhala, Adv. with Shri P. R. Puri, Advocate for Respondent No.1.

CORAM

: A. S. CHANDURKAR AND ABHAY J. MANTRI, JJ.

DATE : 4 th NOVEMBER, 2023.

.

Heard.

2.

The petitioner has sought to challenge the outcome of the exercise of the re-totaling that was undertaken on 18.07.2023 with regard to the examination undertaken by the petitioner in the subject of Hospital and Clinical Pharmacy. In addition, petitioner also challenges the result of Reassessment dated 03.08.2023. 3.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having perused the relevant Examination Regulations framed by the Maharashtra State Board of Technical Education - respondent No.1, we find that in terms of Clause (D) of the Instructions with regard to the Summer Examination - 2023 read with Clause (4) of the Instructions, the petitioner failed to approach the College after obtaining a photo copy of the mark sheet. As per the said provisions, in case there is a grievance with regard to the totaling done that is noticed after receiving the photo copy, a candidate has to approach the concerned College. Under instruction No.4 if this course is not adopted, further change in marks would not be permissible. Since the petitioner did not undertake this exercise, it would not be possible to grant any relief to the petitioner. Though it is submitted by the TAMBE

4 WP-5282-2023 learned counsel for the petitioner that on perusal of the answer sheet, it would indicate that petitioner had secured 12 marks instead of 10 marks that were awarded, we do not find that the Board has committed any error in refusing to rectify the said marks since the course as prescribed in the Instructions has not been followed. 4.

In that view of the matter, no relief can be granted to the petitioner. The writ petition is therefore dismissed. (ABHAY J. MANTRI, J.) (A. S. CHANDURKAR, J.) TAMBE