Case Law Details
Dinesh Kumar Dewangan Vs State of Chhattisgarh (Chhattisgarh High Court)
The Chhattisgarh High Court considered a writ appeal challenging the dismissal of a writ petition relating to denial of a third re-evaluation of university examination answer sheets. The appeal was filed with a delay of 53 days, for which an application for condonation was allowed after due consideration, and registry objections were waived. With the consent of both parties, the appeal was heard finally.
The appeal arose from an order dated 30.06.2025 passed by a learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition filed in WPC No. 4226 of 2021. The appellant had appeared in the Commerce final examination for the March–April 2019 session. The results were declared in June 2019, and the appellant was declared passed with 60% overall marks, securing 43 out of 100 in Income Tax Law and 53 out of 100 in Financial Management.
The appellant applied for re-evaluation on 16.07.2019. The result of this re-evaluation was declared on 20.12.2019, with no change in marks. A second application for re-evaluation was filed on 09.01.2020, and the result was declared on 28.02.2020. Following the second re-evaluation, the marks in Income Tax Law increased from 43 to 53, while the marks in Financial Management were reduced from 53 to 42. According to the appellant, the revised mark sheet was provided on 24.06.2020.
The appellant claimed that on the very next day, i.e., 25.06.2020, he applied before the Vice Chancellor seeking a third re-evaluation in terms of the University Ordinance dated 02.06.2017. The university rejected this request on the ground that the application for re-re-evaluation had been submitted beyond the prescribed period of seven days. The rejection was stated to have been communicated to the appellant on 15.07.2021.
Aggrieved by the rejection of the third re-evaluation request, the appellant filed a writ petition contending that the university had not acted strictly in accordance with its ordinance and seeking a direction for proper re-evaluation of the answer sheets in Income Tax Law and Financial Management. The learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition on 30.06.2025, holding that the university had valued and re-valued the answer sheets in accordance with the applicable rules and ordinances.
In the writ appeal, counsel for the appellant argued that the learned Single Judge failed to consider the University Ordinance dated 02.06.2017, which allegedly provided for a third opportunity for re-evaluation. It was also contended that the application for re-re-evaluation was filed promptly after receipt of the revised mark sheet and that the rejection on the ground of limitation was erroneous.
The State opposed the appeal, submitting that the learned Single Judge had duly considered all relevant aspects and that the university had complied with the governing rules and ordinances. It was argued that no interference with the impugned order was warranted.
After hearing both sides and examining the impugned order and the documents on record, the Division Bench observed that the university had valued and re-valued the answer sheets of the appellant in accordance with the existing rules and university ordinances. The Court noted that the revised mark sheet was issued on 28.02.2020. The appellant’s contention that the mark sheet was received on 24.06.2020 was found to be unsupported by any documentary evidence and was therefore held to be misconceived.
Finding no valid ground to interfere with the order passed by the learned Single Judge, the High Court dismissed the writ appeal. No order as to costs was made.
FULL TEXT OF THE JUDGMENT/ORDER OF CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
1. Heard Mr. Shashi Kumar Kushwaha, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Praveen Das, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State/ respondents on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, application for condonation of delay of 53 days in filing the instant appeal.
2. On due consideration and for the reasons mentioned in the application I.A. No. 01 of 2025, the same is allowed. Delay of 53 days in filing the instant appeal is hereby condoned. Further, the defaults pointed out by the Registry stand waived off.
3. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
4. By way of present writ appeal under Section 2 of Sub-Section (1) of the Chhattisgarh High Court (Appeal to Division Bench Act, 2006, the appellant, who was petitioner in the writ petition has challenged the order dated 30.06.2025 passed by learned Single Judge in WPC No.4226 of 2021 (Dinesh Kumar Dewangan Vs. State of Chhattisgarh & Others), by which the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner/ appellant herein has been dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
5. Brief facts necessary for disposal of this appeal are that at the petitioner participated in the Com. final examination for the session of March-April, 2019, and the result was declared in the month of June 2019 and the petitioner was declared passed with 60% overall marks, and he was awarded 43/100 in Income Tax Law and 53/100 in Financial Management subjects. The petitioner moved an application for re-evaluation on 16.07.2019 and the result was declared on 20.12.2019, and it was informed that there was no change. The petitioner moved another application for re-evaluation on 09.01.2020, and the result was declared on 28.02.2020 and the mark-sheet was provided to the petitioner on 24.06.2020, wherein the marks obtained in Income Tax Law were increased from 43 to 53 out of 100, and in Financial Management it was reduced from 53 to 42 out of 100. The petitioner on the very next day i.e. on 25.06.2020 applied before Vice Chancellor for Re Re Revaluation as per University Ordinance dated 02.06.2017, however, the said application was rejected by the respondent University citing the reason that the application for Re Re Revaluation has been submitted beyond the period of seven days.
6. The petitioner filed a writ petition being WPC No. 4226 of 2021 contending that the respondent University has not acted properly and strictly in accordance with its ordinance and further seeking a direction for re-evaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner of two subjects i.e. Income Tax Law and Financial Management properly. The said writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide impugned order dated 30.06.2025. Hence, this appeal.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned Single Judge has not considered the case of the appellant and passed the impugned order holding that the University valued the answer sheet and re-valued two subjects of the petitioner in accordance with the existing rule/ university ordinance, there is no provision of re-valuation for the third time, whereas University Ordinance dated 02.06.2017 specifically provides a third opportunity for revaluation. He further submits that the learned Single Judge has further failed to appreciate that the appellant received the revised mark sheet on 24.06.2020 and the petitioner on the very next day i.e. on 25.06.2020 applied before Vice Chancellor for Re Re Revaluation as per University Ordinance dated 02.06.2017, however, the said application was rejected by the respondent University citing the reason that the application for Re Re Revaluation has been submitted beyond the period of seven days and the same was communicated to the petitioner only on 15.07.2021.
8. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the learned Single Judge after considering all the aspects of the matter has rightly dismissed the writ petition filed by the writ petitioner / appellant herein, in which no interference is called for.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned order and other documents appended with writ appeal.
10. From perusal of the impugned order and the materials available on record, it transpires that the University valued and re-valued the answer-sheets of two subjects of the petitioner in accordance with the existing rules/university ordinances. Further from perusal of the revised mark-sheet which was issued after revaluation, it transpires that the said mark-sheet was issued on 28.02.2020, thus the appellant’s contention that it was received by him on 24.06.2020 without any documents in support of his contention is misconceived. As such, we do not find any good ground for interference in the impugned order passed by the learned Single Judge.
11. Accordingly, the writ appeal is dismissed. No order as to costs.
Author Bio
