Gopal Krishan Vyas, J. - (1.) INSTANT writ petition has been filed by a student of B.A. Part -I of Maharaja Ganga Singh University, Bikaner. In the writ petition, it is pleaded by the petitioner that after passing the Secondary Examination with 70.67% marks the petitioner acquired Senior Secondary Examination qualification in the year 2010 while securing 71.08% marks. The petitioner got admission in B.A. Part -I and passed the B.A. Ist Year examination and got admission in B.A. Pt. -II, in which, he got supplementary in Literature English Paper -I but petitioner got admission in B.A. Pt. -III and also submitted application form for due paper of English literature. In the result declared by the respondent University, 15 marks were awarded in the Literature English subject and he was declared failed in English Literature B.A. Part -II Paper -I. Contention of learned counsel for the petitioner is that in the question paper for some question 20 marks were provided and, for some questions, 10 marks were provided, and petitioner attempted 5 questions viz., No. 1, 3, 4 and 5, but, unfortunately the answers were not properly assessed by the examiner of the University, therefore, the petitioner filed an application to supply the answer -sheet under the Right to Information Act. The respondent University issued certified copy of the English Literature B.A. Pt. - II (Paper 1) answer -sheet in which the petitioner hoped he will be declared successful.
(2.) THE main grievance of the petitioner is that upon receiving certified copy of the answer -sheet it is revealed that the respondents have not provided any marks for answer to question No. 2, therefore, the respondents may be directed to re -assess the answers and provide marks for the said answer. Along with the writ petition, the petitioner has filed certain documents to show that his answers are correct but marks have not been provided, therefore, it is prayed that on the basis of answer the respondent University may be directed to award marks to the petitioner. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, this Court is not inclined to interfere in the matter because, first of all, the petitioner 'was awarded supplementary in the result of the B.A. Part -II main examination and he appeared in the supplementary examination but he was only declared failed as he obtained only 15 marks. In the University, there is no provision in the rules of the University for revaluation of the answers given by the petitioner because it will be endless job because every unsuccessful student will raise objection that his answers are correct.
(3.) IN view of above, there is no ground for which any direction can be issued to the respondents for revaluation of the answer -sheet of the petitioner. Therefore, this writ petition is hereby dismissed.;