Full Text
Translation output
38#
%12.10.2011
Present: Petitioner in person.
Ms.Jaya Goyal and Mr. Rohit Gandhi for respondent.
+W.P.(C) No. 7434/2011 & CM. No. 16854/2011
*
By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondents to make the provision for revaluation of papers for
Master of Law course.
The petitioner appearing in person states that under the Ordinance of the University the revaluation of the written papers of the undergraduate courses is permissible while no such provision of revaluation of the written papers has been made in the Ordinance so far the Master in Law and other Post Graduate
Courses are concerned. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no rational in depriving the students of LLM Course the benefit of revaluation when such a remedy is provided to the students of undergraduate courses.
Ms.Jaya Goyal counsel for the respondent submits that under the Ordinance ISA Part-I of the Jamia Milia Islamia, the revaluation of the answer sheets of the LLM Course and other Post
2011:DHC:15864
Graduate Courses as detailed in annexure-l of the same has not been made permissible. Counsel also submits that the said
Ordinance of the respondent University has statutory force.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is a settled legal position that the revaluation of answer sheets can be permitted only when the rules of the
University so permit. Indisputably and as per the own case of the petitioner the revaluation of the answer sheets of the LLM Course is not permissible under the Ordinance of the respondent
University. The ordinances of the respondent have a statutory force, therefore, this court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction cannot give any direction to the respondent to make any such provision for the revaluation of the answer sheets of the LLM
Course also. In the absence of any such rule for revaluation of the written papers of the LLM Course, the petitioner cannot be made entitled to seek any indulgence of this court in the present case.
The contention raised by the petitioner is that he has cleared four subjects out of six and the respondents should have taken into account the aggregate marks he scored in all the four subject. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as under the rule even if he has passed in four subjects he must have obtained 50% in theory and 50% in viva-voce. Since the petitioner has not obtained 50% in theory and viva-voce as welf, therefore, this contention cannot be considered.
In the light the above, the present petition stands dismissed.
October 12,2011 mg
KAILASH GAMBHIR,J
%12.10.2011
Present: Petitioner in person.
Ms.Jaya Goyal and Mr. Rohit Gandhi for respondent.
+W.P.(C) No. 7434/2011 & CM. No. 16854/2011
*
By this petition filed under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India, the petitioner seeks directions to direct the respondents to make the provision for revaluation of papers for
Master of Law course.
The petitioner appearing in person states that under the Ordinance of the University the revaluation of the written papers of the undergraduate courses is permissible while no such provision of revaluation of the written papers has been made in the Ordinance so far the Master in Law and other Post Graduate
Courses are concerned. The contention of the petitioner is that there is no rational in depriving the students of LLM Course the benefit of revaluation when such a remedy is provided to the students of undergraduate courses.
Ms.Jaya Goyal counsel for the respondent submits that under the Ordinance ISA Part-I of the Jamia Milia Islamia, the revaluation of the answer sheets of the LLM Course and other Post
2011:DHC:15864
Graduate Courses as detailed in annexure-l of the same has not been made permissible. Counsel also submits that the said
Ordinance of the respondent University has statutory force.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties.
It is a settled legal position that the revaluation of answer sheets can be permitted only when the rules of the
University so permit. Indisputably and as per the own case of the petitioner the revaluation of the answer sheets of the LLM Course is not permissible under the Ordinance of the respondent
University. The ordinances of the respondent have a statutory force, therefore, this court in exercise of the writ jurisdiction cannot give any direction to the respondent to make any such provision for the revaluation of the answer sheets of the LLM
Course also. In the absence of any such rule for revaluation of the written papers of the LLM Course, the petitioner cannot be made entitled to seek any indulgence of this court in the present case.
The contention raised by the petitioner is that he has cleared four subjects out of six and the respondents should have taken into account the aggregate marks he scored in all the four subject. This contention of the petitioner cannot be accepted as under the rule even if he has passed in four subjects he must have obtained 50% in theory and 50% in viva-voce. Since the petitioner has not obtained 50% in theory and viva-voce as welf, therefore, this contention cannot be considered.
In the light the above, the present petition stands dismissed.
October 12,2011 mg
KAILASH GAMBHIR,J
JUDGMENT