University that the petitioners and the other students like them are
provided with the facility of revaluation as an additional facility and
there is no right in them to seek revaluation. We do not find any force
in the submission made on behalf of the University that there is no right
to seek revaluation. We find on a reading of Direction No.5 of 2004
that the students are entitled to make applications seeking revaluation
of their answersheets. The very fact that the petitioners were declared
unsuccessful initially as per the results declared on 16/06/2015 and are
declared successful after revaluation, clearly shows that it was the fault
of the University in not awarding appropriate marks to the petitioners at
the first valuation. The fact that the petitioners were initially declared
unsuccessful and are declared successful after revaluation clearly shows
that the facility is deserved. We have witnessed that sometimes some
worthy students are either declared unsuccessful or are awarded
extremely low marks in the initial valuation and after revaluation they
are declared successful and their marks are increased significantly. At
least, in case of such students, it cannot be said that revaluation is an
additional facility which the University has granted to the students due
to its generosity.
8. We do not find any force in the submission made on behalf
of the University that the revaluation results were declared within a
period of 65 days. We are not inclined to reckon the period from the
date of making of the application for revaluation as the results were
declared in the case of the petitioners on 16/06/2015 and the
declaration of the revaluation results was on 05/10/2015. This clearly
shows that the results of the petitioners were declared after a period of
110 days from the date of declaration of the results. We find that there
is a gross delay in the declaration of the results of the petitioners in the
instant case. The submission made on behalf of the University that
about 135 to 140 days are required for completing the process of
revaluation is ridiculous. If this is accepted, the results of the students
would not be declared till the next supplementary examination. Also,
the students would not be entitled to admission in the subsequent year
of the same course or to a new course if the last date for submission of
the marksheet for appearing at the examination of the advanced course
or the next year of the same course is 25th of September. The
revaluation facility would be illusory. The students may not know till
the beginning of the supplementary examination whether they would or
would not be required to appear at the supplementary examination, if
the revaluation results are declared in 135 to 140 days.
9. Also, we find that the principle of lex non cogit ad
impossibilia would apply to the facts of this case. The petitioners cannot
be asked to do something that is impossible and is not within the reach
of the petitioners. The petitioners had applied for revaluation and it
was the duty of the respondent No.2University to reevaluate the
answersheets within a reasonable time. If the University was at fault
in not declaring the revaluation results of the petitioners before the
stipulated date, i.e. 25/09/2015, the petitioners cannotbenonsuited for
not submitting the marksheets before that date.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
NAGPUR BENCH, NAGPUR.
WRIT PETITION NO. 6293 OF 2015
Ms. Sneha Fulchand Hargude,
...VERSUS...
Joint Director of Technical Education,
CORAM : SMT. VASANTI A. NAIK &
A.S.CHANDURKAR, JJ.
DATED : 01.03.2016
Citation: 2016(3) ALLMR577
