Court No. - 34
Case :- SPECIAL APPEAL No. - 855 of 2012 Appellant :- Ravish Kumar Respondent :- Vice Chancellor Chaudhari Charan Singh University And Ors.
Counsel for Appellant :- Raj Kumar,Anil Tiwari,Rajesh Kumar Sharma Counsel for Respondent :- Anurag Khanna,Ashutosh Mishra,C.P. Dwivedi
Hon'ble Sudhir Agarwal,J. Hon'ble Shashi Kant,J.
1. Heard learned counsel for parties and perused the record.
2. This intra-Court appeal under Chapter VIII Rule 5 of Allahabad High Court Rules, 1952 has arisen from judgment dated 02.04.2012, passed by learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 37924 of 2011 - Ravish Kumar Vs. Vice Chancellor Chaudhari Charan Singh University & Others, whereby petitioner-appellant's writ petition has been dismissed.
3. Aforesaid writ petition was filed by petitioner-appellant seeking following reliefs :
"A) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondent concerned to give the marking to the petitioner in the Paper Code No. 203 in the back paper examination of main examination L.L.B. second year 2010.
B) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondent concerned to produce the record of paper Code No. 203 in L.L.B. second year back paper examination, paper code No. 203.
C) Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing to the respondent concerned to permit the petitioner to submit the form in L.L.B. third year.
D) Issue any other writ, order or direction as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper under the circumstances of the case.
E) Award the cost of the petition to the petitioner."
4. Grievance of petitioner-appellant was that in Paper Code No.
203 and in Back Paper examination of L.L.B. Second Year Sessions 2010, he was shown absent in the mark sheet issued by the University, but as a matter of fact petitioner-appellant has appeared in the examination. Learned counsel for University, before learned single Judge filed an affidavit stating that inadvertently in the mark sheet appellant was shown absent though he had actually appeared in the Paper Code No. 203 and had obtained 22 marks. Learned Single Judge, thereafter himself perused the web site mark sheet and passed impugned judgment in question.
5. It is not the case of petitioner-appellant that findings recorded by learned Single Judge in judgment in question in respect to "web site marksheet" are incorrect.
6. In that view of the matter, we find no ground to interfere in the judgment in question.
7. Appeal lacks merit. Dismissed.
Order Date :- 22.2.2018 A. Verma