SAKTI PADA JANA Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA AND OTHERS
LAWS(CAL)-1994-5-21
HIGH COURT OF CALCUTTA
Decided on May 06,1994

Sakti Pada Jana Appellant
VERSUS
University Of Calcutta And Others Respondents


Referred Judgements :-

JULIUS V. BISHIP OF OXFORD [REFERRED TO]
ASSOCIATED PROVINCIAL PICTURE HOUSES LTD V. WEDNESBURY CORPORATION [REFERRED TO]
NAZIR AHMED V. KING EMPEROR [REFERRED TO]
CHIEF CONTROLLING,REVENUE AUTHORITY V. MAHARASHTRA SUGAR MILLS LTD [REFERRED TO]
SOMAWANTI 0M PARKASH ATMA RAM CHODHA VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
S PARTAP SINGH VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [REFERRED TO]
RAMANA DAYARAM SHETTY VS. INTERNATIONAL AIRPORT AUTHORITY OF INDIA [REFERRED TO]


JUDGEMENT

Nisith Kumar Batabyal, J. - (1.)This Civil Order arises out of an application under Art. 226 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner appeared in the final examination of Law (3 years) of the respondent university under the revised Regulations consisting of six papers, namely, (1) Public International Law, (2) Drafting of Pleadings and Documents. (3) Equity and Trust, (4) Company law and other two elective papers of 100 marks each. The petitioner opted to take Labour Law and Taxation as his elective papers. In order to pass the said examination one candidate is required to obtain an agreegate of 270 marks in the minimum and thereby get a 2nd Class. A photo-copy of the Admit Card given to the petitioner by the University of Calcutta has been annexed with the writ petition and marked as Annexure "A". When the result of the examination was published, to his utter surprise, the petitioner found that he had failed to obtain the minimum pass marks. After taking delivery of the Mark-sheet from his college, namely, Surendranath Law College, Calcutta, the petitioner came to learn that he had been given 37 marks in public International Law (paper 1st), 50 marks in Drafting of Pleadings and Documents (paper 2nd), 42 in Equity and Trust (paper Third), 47 in Company Law (paper Fourth), 35 in Labour Law (elective paper Fifth) and 42 in Taxation (elective paper Sixth), totalling 253 marks. A copy of the mark sheet issued by the Controller of Examination of the Calcutta University (respondent No. 3) has been annexed with the writ petition and maked "B". Within the prescribed time, the petitioner took the decision to apply for re-examination of the answer-scripts in all the six papers but he came to know that existing rules did not permit re-examination in more than 2 papers. So he deposited the prescribed fees at the rate of Rs. 20.00 per paper for re-examination of the answer-scripts of paper 1st and paper 5th. The challan showing the deposit has been annexed and marked "C". The Rules for Post Publication Re-examination of answer papers for the relevant examination has been marked as Annexure "D" to the writ petition. When the result of the re-examination prayed for by the petitioner was published he found that he got 7 marks more in paper 1st and 5 marks more in paper 5th. So his total marks came up to 265. The contention of the petitioner is that if other papers could also be re-examined then the petitioner marks would have definitely exceeded the minimum 270 marks. According to he petitioner, there is no justification and reasonable cause on the part of the University for not re-examining all the papers which on the face of the record were not correctly assessed either due to nonfeasance or misfeasance on the part of the examiners.
(2.)Under the existing Rules of the University, an examinee can claim re-examination in more than two papers comprising of 200 marks. The petitioner submits that the said Rule is arbitrary, unreasonable and unjust, particularly when it is detected that the result originally declared were erroneous and there had been gross under-assessment of the answer-scripts. The petitioner is sure and confident that if re-examination is allowed in respect of the other four papers he will secure the required marks of 270 in total.
(3.)Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the University in not permitting the petitioner, the review of more than 2 subjects, he moved a writ petition before this Court on 28th July, 1993 and the Honourable Judge after hearing both the parties was pleased to allow the prayer mad; in the writ petition with a direction upon the petitioner to make a representation for review before the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic). The relevant portion of the order reads as follows:-
"The petitioner is directed to make a representation for review before the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic) and the pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will consider the said representation sympathetically and review the other four papers and dispose of the same.

Such decision will be taken within 2 weeks from date. It is expected that the Pro-Vice-Chancellor (Academic) will allow such review of all the four papers, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case. This, however, will not be treated as a precedent".



Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.