Rakesh Tiwari, J. - (1.) HEARD learned Counsel for the parties.
(2.) THIS writ petition has been filed for a direction to the respondents for deciding the representation of the petitioner dated 21.10.2008. It is averred in the representation that the petitioner has failed in English and Urdu subjects, though she had expected more than 50% marks in the said subjects and has been deliberately failed due to mala fides of the examiners against her. The prayer in the writ petition is for a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the University authorities to produce answer copies of English Literature and Urdu Hnd papers of B.A. IInd year examination of session 2007-08 pertaining to the Roll No. 581710 of the petitioner and decide her status con sidering the valuation of answers. Sri H.N. Mishra appearing on behalf of Vice-Chancellor, Registrar and Examination Controller Veer Bahadur Singh Purvanchal University sub mits that there is no basis given in the writ petition to establish any mala fide in checking of her copies. He further submits that now at the end of January, 2009 examinations again be held by the university of those students, who have failed in the past year.
(3.) I have considered the submissions of learned Counsel for the parties and I am of the opinion that the personal roll number allotted to the petitioner was not known to the examiner who was checking the copies. They are unknown to the petitioner also, hence no question of failing the petitioner deliberately with mala fide intention. This allegation appears to have been made only to give colour to the writ petition. Further more mala fide is also not establish from record. In fact petitioner wants revaluation of her copies, which is not provided in the statutes or rules of the university. For all the reasons stated above, the writ petition fails and is dis missed. No order as to costs. Petition Dismissed.;