rpa 1/5 rpw(l)-30-17.doc
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
ORDINARY ORIGINAL CIVIL JURISDICTION
REVIEW PETITION (L) NO.30 OF 2017
IN
WRIT PETITION NO.737 OF 2017
The Director of Examination & .. Review
Evaluation, University of Mumbai & Anr. Petitioners
Vs.
Ms.Swati Shantaram Bagde & Anr.
The Director of Examination &
Evaluation, University of Mumbai & Anr. .. Respondents
......
Mr.Rui A. Rodrigues a/w. Mr.Asadullah Shaikh, Advocate for the
Applicant in Review Petition.
Mr.D.V. Deokar i/b. R.K. Jha, Advocate for Respondent/Original
Petitioner in W.P. 737 of 2017.
Mr.Chandrakant Y. Talwatkar, Office Superintendent, Siddharth
College of Law and Mr.Deepak J. Mane, Clerk, Siddharth College
of Law, present.
......
CORAM : SHANTANU S. KEMKAR AND
PRAKASH D. NAIK, JJ.
JUDGMENT RESERVED ON : SEPTEMBER 14, 2017
JUDGMENT PRONOUNCED ON : SEPTEMBER 27, 2017
JUDGMENT (PER PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) :
This Review Petition has been preferred to review the judgment and order dated 8th March, 2017, passed by this Court in Writ Petition (L) No.626 of 2017.
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:32:18 :::
rpa 2/5 rpw(l)-30-17.doc
2 By order dated 8th March, 2017, the petition preferred
by respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was allowed setting aside the impugned communication dated 30th January, 2017 issued by respondent no.1 therein. The respondent nos.1 and 2 (review petitioners) were directed to forthwith declare the result of the petitioner of having passed the 6th Semester of the third year LLB Course for the academic year 2014-15. The respondent no.3(respondent no.2 in present petition) was directed to pay an amount of Rs.15,000/- towards fine for belatedly forwarding the practical examination marks of the petitioner and the review petitioners were directed to issue mark-sheet to the original petitioner for the 6th Semester of 3rd year LLB course for the academic year 2014-15. The order dated 8 th March, 2017, was passed after hearing both the parties, including the learned counsel for the review petitioners and on perusal of all the documents which were placed on record. The review petitioners have submitted that at the stage when the order was passed, certain facts could not be placed before the Court qua the petitioner since written instructions were received only in the evening and, therefore, it is deemed proper to apply for review of the said order dated 8th March, 2017. It is submitted that respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was permitted by the college ::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:32:18 ::: rpa 3/5 rpw(l)-30-17.doc to appear for 3rd year LLB Examination despite she having not appeared for practical training examination. The respondent no.2 College forwarded the result sheet of the student who had appeared inter-alia in the practical training examination, wherein it has been clearly shown that the respondent no.1 herein was absent at the said practical examination. Accordingly, since the said student had not appeared and, therefore, had not cleared the practical examination, the university informed the college that the student's admission was marked ADC (Admission Cancelled) and accordingly, the three member committee prepared a chart encompassing the said evidence, which was also included in the cases pertaining to respondent no.2 college. It is further submitted that at the meeting of the Board of Examination held on 1st October, 2016, it was found that in view of non-compliance with the regulation, the request received from the college in respect to be students came to be rejected. The learned counsel for the review petitioners therefore stressed upon the fact that respondent no.1 had not appeared in the practical examination at all which is evident from the result sheet supplied by the college. 3 At the outset, it has to be observed that the scope of review is very limited. The petition was heard by giving ::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:32:18 ::: rpa 4/5 rpw(l)-30-17.doc opportunity to both the parties. While passing the earlier order, the Court has taken into consideration the submissions advanced by both the parties as well as the documents which were annexed to the petition. The ground that certain facts were not taken in to consideration while the order is being passed is no ground to review the order passed by this Court. In the order dated 8 th March, 2017, it has been observed categorically that the petitioner (student) had appeared for practical examination conducted by the college on 12th March, 2015 and 13th March, 2015 which facts is fortified by the attendance sheet of the practical examination which has been annexed to the petition. The record also reveals that the petitioner has passed practical examination. It is submitted that the result sheet forwarded by the college indicate that the petitioner was absent. The inference is drawn on the basis that there is punctuation mark in the form of dash in the result sheet indicating that the original petitioner was absent. The representative of the college who was present during the course of hearing of this review petition placed before us the record of the college and also pointed out the copy of the result sheet dated 20th April, 2015. On perusal of the papers, it is apparent that there is blank in front of the name of the petitioner vis-a-vis, the marks obtained by her in practical examination. We ::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:32:18 ::: rpa 5/5 rpw(l)-30-17.doc have also perused the said list wherein there is clear endorsement of absent in respect to student who had not appeared for examination. Hence, there is no reason to infer that result sheet dated 12th April, 2015 forwarded by the college indicated that the respondent no.1 (original petitioner) was absent in the examination. The xerox copy of the said documents furnished by the representative of the respondent no.2 in this petition are taken on record and marked "X" for identification. The learned counsel for the review petitioner also placed reliance on the decision of this Court in Writ Petition No.3949 of 2016 (Coram : S.C. Dharmadhikari & G.S. Kulkarni, JJ), decided on 7 th April, 2016, wherein it was observed that the college ought to have taken university clearance for conducting the 2 nd practical examination. The said decision is not applicable in the case before us. In our opinion, no case for review is made out and the review petition is, therefore, deserves to be dismissed.
4 Hence, we pass the following order:
:: O R D E R ::
(i) Review Petition (L) No.30 of 2017 is dismissed;
(ii) No order as to costs.
(PRAKASH D. NAIK, J.) (SHANTANU S. KEMKAR, J.)
::: Uploaded on - 29/09/2017 ::: Downloaded on - 30/09/2017 01:32:18 :::