PRIYA MISHRA v. ATAL BIHARI VAJPAYEE VISHWAVIDYALAYA

2

marks obtained, she moved an application for getting her answer sheet revalued on 23.01.2017 in accordance with the Ordinance and Regulations of the University, thereafter answer sheet of the appellant/writ petitioner was sent for revaluation and the revaluation result was declared on 24.08.2017 and there was 'no change' in the marks allotted to the applicant. Subsequently, she moved an application for supplying copy of the answer sheets of two papers of 4th Semester on 28.08.2017, upon which the answer sheets were supplied to her on 25.09.2017. After receiving the same, she again moved an application on 3/4-10-2017 seeking trivaluation of the said answer sheets, which was accepted by the respondent University and after trivaluation declared the result on 02.01.2018, in which also there was 'no change' in the marks obtained by the appellant/writ petitioner. Thereafter a writ petition bearing WPC No.312/2020 was filed before High Court seeking a direction to the respondents to revalue the answer sheet of the petitioner and make corrections, if any. The said petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge vide its order dated 20.06.2022 which was further subjected to challenge by filing WA No. 403 of 2022. The said appeal also came to be dismissed vide order dated 12.09.2023.

3. Ms. Mishra, applicant, appearing in person submits that the respondent University had in fact not revalued the answer sheet of the applicant and there is error apparent on the face of record. The applicant had made an application for tri-valuation of two answer sheets but only one was revalued and the result was declared after five months.

4. On the other hand, Dr. Sudeep Agrawal, learned counsel for the respondent University submits that the learned Single Judge, after taking into consideration all the issues raised in this review petition, has rightly dismissed the writ petition and the learned Division Bench has also affirmed the same. There is no illegality or infirmity in the orders passed by the

3

learned Single Judge as well as by the learned Division Bench and as such, this review petition also deserves to be dismissed.

5. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, gone through the pleadings and documents annexed with the review petition as well as the writ appeal and the writ petition.

6. This Court, after taking note of all the relevant aspects of the matter, had arrived at a finding that on the application filed by the applicant her answer sheets were revalued twice. Although at the first instance, her answer sheets would have to be revalued by two examiners instead thereof it had revalued by three examiners, but the applicant could not demonstrate anything that due to aforesaid act any prejudice was caused to her. Subsequently, on application being filed by her, her answer sheets were trivalued that too by three examiners. It was also revealed from the record that despite revaluation of the answer sheet twice, marks was not found to be changed of the applicant. The applicant even could not succeed to bring any cogent ground to believe that due to alleged delay any injustice was done with her. If Ordinance or Regulations of the University did not permit third time revaluation of the answer sheets, then only on the ground of some mistakes committed by respondent, which does not result into any statutory loss to the applicant, hence, finding no ground for interference, the appeal was also dismissed.

7. There is no error apparent on the face of the record and the attempt of the review petitioners is to re-agitate the issue which has already been considered and decided by this Court. Even otherwise, the law with regard to review of an order is well settled that a party is not entitled to seek a review of a judgment delivered by a Court merely for the purpose of a rehearing and a fresh decision in the case. Normally the principle is that a judgment pronounced by the Court is final and departure from that

4

principle is justified only when circumstances of a substantial and compelling character make it necessary to do so, which is missing in this case.

8. It is well settled principle of law that the review proceedings are not by way of an appeal and have to be strictly confined to the scope of ambit of Order 47 Rule 1 of the Code of Civil Procedure, 1908. Even in exercise of review jurisdiction by the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the review petitioner has not produced any ground for review. It appears that the review petitioner, by presentation of this review petition seeks an opportunity to argue the entire case afresh on merits under the garb of the review petition which is not permissible and tenable in law.

9. It is well settled principle that under the garb of the review petition, the review petitioner should not be permitted to argue the entire case afresh which would amount to convert the review petition into an appeal and the same is not sustainable in law as held by the Supreme Court in case of Meera Bhanjan v. Smt. Nirmal Kumar Choudhary, reported in AIR 1995 SC 455, Lily Thomas etc. v. Union of India & Others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 1650, Ajit Kumar Rath v. State of Orissa & Others, reported in AIR 2000 SC 85, Government of T.N. & Others v. M. Ananchu Asari & Others, reported in (2005) 2 SCC 332 and in the case of Kerala State Electricity Board v. Hitech Electrothermics & Hydropower Ltd & Others, reported in (2005) 6 SCC 651.

10. As a result, this review petition is dismissed being devoid of merit. - Sd/- Sd/-

(Naresh Kumar Chandravanshi) (Ramesh Sinha)

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Amit