The central legal point established in the judgment is that revaluation cannot be claimed as of right and that the authority to make provisions for revaluation lies within the domain of the University.

ORDER :- Petitioner in this writ petition has assailed vires of clause 26(1) Ordinance 6 framed under M. P. Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973, (hereinafter referred to as 'the Adhiniyam') and to direct the respondent to revaluate the answer sheets of the petitioner.

2. Petitioner has submitted that petitioner is a student of L. L. B. 1st year in Barkatullah University, Bhopal and has obtained total 491 marks out of 900 in L. L. B. 1st year. She had applied for revaluation of her answer-sheets in two subjects which is permissible and there is an increase of 32 marks in overall result as apparent from mark-sheet (Ex. P. 3) issued after revaluation. Under clause 26 of the Ordinance 6 there is limit to apply for revaluation of only two subjects. Petitioner has been meritorious throughout her academic career, thus, she has prayed for revaluation of other answer-sheets also. Petitioner has submitted that she has done better than the marks awarded to her in other papers in which revaluation has not been done, consequently she has preferred writ petition.

3. The University in its return has denied the averments made in the petition contending that Ordinance 6 of the Barkatullah University has been framed in exercise of power under Section 37 (iii) of the Adhiniyam providing provisions with regard to examinations leading to the degrees, diplomas and certificates of the University. The provision made restricting the revaluation in two papers is constitutional and does not infringe any of the rights of petitioner. Increase in marks in two papers does not automatically entitle the petitioner to apply in other subjects. The provision cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. No case for interference in the academic matters is made out.

4. Ms. Jasmit Chana, learned counsel for the petitioner, has submitted that revaluation could not have been restricted to two papers by the University as per the aforesaid Ordinance 6(26). The provision is illegal and arbitrary.

5. Shri P. K. Kaurav, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent, has submitted that the matter is purely academic. There is power to frame the Ordinance under Section 37 of the Adhiniyam. No case for interference in the petition is made out.

6. Main question for consideration is whether the provision made in clause 26(1) Ordinance 6 can be said to be ultra vires, arbitrary or illegal.

7. Under Section 37 of the Adhiniyam the University is competent to frame Ordinance subject to the provisions of the Adhiniyam and the Statutes, the ordinances may provide for the examination leading to the degrees, diplomas and certificates of the University; laying down conditions for appearing at examinations for degrees, diplomas, certificates and other academic distinctions; conduct of examinations as provided under Section 37(iii) and (vi) of the Adhiniyam, thus, revaluation is also one of the matter for which Ordinance can be framed by the University. Revaluation cannot be claimed as of right. In the absence of the provision for revaluation, it cannot be claimed as held by the Apex Court in Guru Nanak Dev University v. Parmindar Kaur Bansal and another, (1993) 4 SCC 401 : (AIR 1993 SC 2412), Pramod Kumar Shrivastava v. Chairman, Bihar Public Service Commission, (2004) 6 SCC 714 : (AIR 2004 SC 4116), Board of Secondary Education v. Prevas Ranjan Panda and another, (2004) 13 SCC 383.

8. It is also settled that it is not for the Court to examine the wisdom, merits or efficacy of policy of the Legislature or its delegate to see if it effectuates the purpose of the Act. It is not within the legitimate domain of the Court to determine whether the purpose of a statute can be served better by adopting any policy different from what has been laid down by the Legislature or its delegate. Any drawbacks in the policy incorporated in a rule or regulation will not render it ultra vires and there is no scope for interference by the Court unless the particular provision impugned before it can be said to suff

Click Here to Read the rest of this document