P.D. Naik, J.

1. Rule. Rule is made returnable forthwith.

2. By consent of parties, matter is taken up for final disposal forthwith.

3. Petitioner has invoked writ jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner has prayed for issuance of Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction seeking reliefs prayed for in this petition. The petitioner is a student who secured admission with respondent No. 2 for bachelor degree in Civil Engineering course in the year 2014. As averred in the petition, the petitioner had taken provisional admission for the third year of bachelor degree in Civil Engineering (B.E. Civil). He was attending the college regularly for third years B.E. Civil. Respondent No. 2 is affiliated to respondent No. 1 as per the provisions of the Maharashtra Universities Act. The petitioner has contended that he had appeared for the examination in May 2016 and secured 591 marks in aggregate out of 1500 marks. He failed in six subjects. As per the mark-sheet dated 21st June, 2016 issued by the respondent No. 1, the petitioner had obtained 25 marks in online examination and 10 marks in theory and thereby he had secured 35 marks in total for the subject Geotechnical Engineering. He was declared fail in the said subject. It is further contended that after perusal of the mark-sheet, the petitioner decided to ask for the photocopies of the answer sheets of the failed subjects. Accordingly, he made an application for obtaining the same. On 12th October, 2016, he received an E-Mail from respondent No. 1 stating that the photocopy of the answer sheet for the subject Geotechnical Engineering has been dispatched on 12th October, 2016. It was further informed that the revaluation system for the same will be activated after two days and the last date for filling application for revaluation of answer sheets will be 23rd October, 2016.

4. The petitioner has further claimed that he did not receive the photocopy of the answer sheet. However, he submitted an application for revaluation of the answer sheet of the said subject. The online revaluation results were disclosed by respondent No. 1 in which there was change in the marks of two subjects namely Strength of Material and Surveying. However, there was no change of marks in the subject Geotechnical Engineering. The petitioner made another application on 17th November, 2016 and sought photocopies of the revalued answer sheets of the subject Geotechnical Engineering. He received the said copy in which the marks shown after revaluation were 13. It is, therefore, contended that the marks were increased from 10 to 13. On 16th November, 2016, respondent No. 1 university issued another mark sheet in which the marks is in respect to the aforesaid subject were shown as 25 for the online examination and 12 for the theory examination and the petitioner was declared "fail" in the said subject. The petitioner contended that there was apparent discrepancy in the mark sheet dated 21st June, 2016, where in the marks shown were 10, whereas in the revaluation it was shown to be 13 and in the mark-sheet dated 16th November, 2016, it was shown as 12 marks.

5. The petitioner approached respondent No. 1 and informed that he is entitled to get benefit of 13 marks as shown in the revaluation of the answer sheet and is also entitled to the benefit of Ordinance 1. However, respondent No. 1 failed to consider the said request. It was contended that on account of the aforesaid discrepancy, the petitioner will not be able to appear to the next semester and he will have to loose one year.

6. The petitioner has prayed that respondent No. 1 be directed to consider 13 marks which were increased after revaluation of the answer sheet for Geotechnical Engineering subject and be directed to grant benefit of Ordinance 1 by allotting two marks in the sai