The Director Of Examination And ... vs Swati Shantaram Bagde And Anr
2017 Latest Caselaw 7611 Bom

       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.

        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

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

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

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.)