The court emphasized the importance of correct roll number marking and upheld the authority of the respondent to re-evaluate the answer script based on the correct roll number.

ORDER

Purushaindra Kumar Kaurav, J. (Oral)

1. The petitioner, vide the instant writ petition seeks for the following reliefs:

"(i) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent to award earlier marks obtained by the petitioner in Paper 3 as was so tabulated and is clear from the tabulation and declare the petitioner as having passed as all the persons who have obtained 90 and above marks have been declared successful;

(ii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent to hold an enquiry as to the circumstances in which the paper 3 of the petitioner was misplaced and evaluated later on to cause harm to the petitioner;

(iii) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent to hold an enquiry as to the circumstances in which paper 3 was again evaluated and marks were lowered down;

(iv) issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ, order or direction thereby directing the respondent to inform the Hon'ble Court as to the power under which the respondent can indulge in the act of evaluating again and again and whether there is any such provisions under the Act and Rules for permitting them to do so;

(v) award costs of the present writ petition in favour of the petitioner and against the respondent."

2. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submits that in the instant case, a grave injustice has occurred to the petitioner. According to him, the respondent- University Grants Commission (hereinafter as to `UGC') deliberately misplaced the answer script of the petitioner and evaluated the same much after the declaration of the result of other candidates.

3. He, therefore, submits that in the instant case, the marks which were awarded to the petitioner originally were lowered down. He has pointed out various discrepancies from the answer script of Paper-III. According to him, the original marks awarded to the petitioner were 99 which were reduced to 88 and later on the same were further reduced to 78. He has also shown various overwriting in the OMR sheet.

4. According to him, in the concerned year in which the petitioner appeared, the candidates from General Category who obtained less marks than the petitioner were considered eligible for lectureship. He, therefore, submits that had the answer script of the petitioner been appropriately evaluated, the petitioner would have been given the correct marks and eventually, the petitioner would have secured admission in the concerned course.

5. He, therefore, submits that the instant case is a clear case of various anomalies and discrepancies which requires appropriate directions to be issued not only against the respondent-UGC but also to award compensation in favour of the petitioner.

6. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-UGC vehemently opposes the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner. While taking this court through the averments made in the counter affidavit, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-UGC submits that the petitioner did not circle the required column of the OMR sheet to indicate her correct roll number.

7. He, therefore, submits that in the absence of the roll number being correctly marked in the petitioner's answer script, her marks were not awarded against the roll number. Therefore, the petitioner was treated as absent.

8. He further submits that since the petitioner circled a different roll number, therefore, the marks were awarded against the circled roll number. Learned counsel for the respondent-UGC also submits that the circled roll number candidate incidentally remained absent on the date of examination.

9. I have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing on behalf of the parties and perused the record.

10. The facts of the case would show that in the year 2011 the petitioner appeared in NET Examina