Prakash S/O Radheshyam Agrawal v. State Of Maharashtra, Thr. Secretary, Dept. Of Technical Education, Mumbai And Others

2023:BHC-NAG:15767-DB 1 wp 5552.23

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

NAGPUR BENCH : NAGPUR Writ Petition No.5552/2023 (Prakash V State of Maharashtra and others) - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Office Notes, Office Memoranda of Coram, Court's or Judge's orders appearances, Court's orders of directions and Registrar's orders - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Mr. R.K. Thakkar, Adv for petitioner.

Mr. P.R. Puri, Advocate for respondent nos.2 and 3. Mr Joshi, AGP for respondent no.1.

CORAM : A.S. Chandurkar & Abhay J. Mantri, JJ DATE : 26-10-2023.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents on record.

2.

Pursuant to the examination regulations the petitioner sought revaluation of his answer-books after declaration of his initial result on 29-06-2023. In the reassessment as conducted there was a slight change in the marks awarded to the petitioner insofar as the subject of Social Pharmacy-Theory is concerned. The marks secured earlier were 09 which was changed to 23. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner the exercise of revaluation has not been undertaken in a proper manner and the petitioner has been awarded lower marks than what he is entitled to. Having perused the examination regulations and especially clause-K thereof it is seen that the marks obtained by an examinee after reassessment has been treated to be final and binding and the matter is closed. This Court does not possess the expertise to record a finding that the reassessment has not been done in a proper manner. Since the case of the petitioner has been considered in accordance with the provisions of the

2 wp 5552.23 examination regulations, we do not find any reason to interfere in the writ jurisdiction.

3.

The Writ Petition is therefore dismissed.

(Judge) (Judge) Deshmukh