CHITTARANJAN CHOUDHURY Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY
LAWS(ORI)-1978-8-10
HIGH COURT OF ORISSA
Decided on August 09,1978

CHITTARANJAN CHOUDHURY Appellant
VERSUS
UTKAL UNIVERSITY Respondents

JUDGEMENT

R.N.MISRA, J. - (1.) Petitioner as a regular candidate of Christ College at Cuttack appeared for the Annual B. A. (Honours) Examination of 1976 held by the Utkal University from the B. J. B. College Centre, Bhubaneswar, with Roll No. 705290. His subjects were English, Modern Indian Language (Oriya) and Economics with Honours in Political Science. Under the appropriate Regulations of the Utkal University, there are two papers in English, one paper in M.I.L., three papers in Economics and six papers in the Honours subject, each paper carrying 100 marks, Petitioner appeared in all the papers but he was declared to have passed B.A. Examination without Honours. After publication of the results, the petitioner approached the Principal of Christ College for his mark-sheet and on receiving the same (Annexure 1), he was surprised to find that he was shown absent in the first paper of Economics. He, therefore, applied to the) University for a fresh mark-sheet being apprehensive that there was some mistake because he had appeared in all the papers. The mark-sheet granted by the University also showed him as absent in Economic Paper I. Copies of the respective mark-sheets have been annexed as Annexures 1 and 2 to the writ petition. Petitioner had applied for admission into the LL.B. course but he was refused admission on the ground that ha had not secured the minimum of 40% in the aggregate. Petitioner thereupon complained to the University that he had as a fact appeared in Economics Paper I and the University Authorities were not justified in not giving him any credit for the said paper. Petitioner approached the Principal of the B.J.B. College, the Centre from where he took the examinitiation, and obtained a certificate (Annexure 3) running thus: "Certified that Shri Chittaranjan Chaudhury, Roll No. 70529C has appeared at the Annual B.A, Examination in Economics (Pass) P. I on dated 22-4-76 (1st sitting i.e. 10 A.M. to 1 P.M.). He has used the main khata bearing the No. A 531852 for the purpose of the said subject. It is verified from the Room Chart." Petitioner alleges that the University authorities were not prepared to act on the basis of the certificate in Annexure-3. Petitioner thereupon issued a lawyer's notice) to the University and in reply, was told to approach the Principal of the Christ College for the revised mark-sheet. The Principal, on being approached by the petitioner, denied to have received any revised mark-sheet from the University concerning the petitioned and informed him in writing to that effect vide Annexure 6, Petitioner again approached the University authorities along with Annexure 6 and on this occasion, the Assistant Controller of Examinations informed him vide Annexure 7 : "This is to inform you that the marks recured by you at the Annual B.Sc. (Honours) Degree Examination of 1976 have been sent to the Principal, Christ College, Cuttack. You are advised to get your marks from the Principal of your College. The Principal is being written in the matter," Petitioner again went to the Principal for the revised mark-sheet and obtained the same as per Annexure 8. The original and the revised mark-sheets with reference to the three papers and the college marks in Economics are as follows:- Economics Paper-I Paper-II Paper-III College Marks Original Mark-sheet Absent 27 53 33 Revised Mark-sheet 19 27 34 33 Total 113 113 Petitioner alleged in the writ application that the marks originally assigned to him in the) third paper were adjusted between the first and third papers subsequently as seen from the revised mark-sheet. Petitioner alleged that he reasonably apprehended that the marks have not been awarded as per the Regulations but have been arbitrarily, shown. He accordingly prayed for a direction to the University to show cause why the entry in the revised mark-sheet in Economics Paper III should not be quashed and replaced by the entry in the original mark-sheet and for other suitable direction as may be found proper.
(2.) Opposite parties 2 and 3 have not chosen to make any return to the rule nisi issued from the Court The Controller of Examinations of the University has filed an affidavit in opposition and has pleadeld that the petitioner was a regular candidate of the Christ College and had initially applied to take B.A. (Honours) Examination at the said Centre. Later he changed his centre to B.J.B. College at Bhubaneswar and was permitted to do so. The answer script of the petitioner in Paper I of Economics was sent to the Examiner appointed for that paper in respect of the B.J.B, College Centre. After awarding marks, the mark foils along with the answer scripts were returned to the University. Adverting to the practice) followed for valuation of the answer scrips it has been further said thus : Each College sends an alphabetical list of candidates taking examination. Roll sheets are prepared and printed on the basis of such alphabetical list and such roll sheets are sent to the respective centres where the candidates put their signatures in token of evidence of appearing in the papers. The tabulation register is prepared from out of such roll sheets much before the examinations are scheduled. The superintendents of the Centres also send list of absentee candidates. After receipt of the answer papers, tabulators are appointed to tabulate the marks for publication of the results and they examine the roll sheets and mark absent in the tabulation register those who are marked absent in the roll sheets. When the answer papers are sent to the Examiners, lists of answer scripts are also sent by the Centre Superintendents along with the answer scripts. Those candidates who are marked absent in the roll sheets are also indicated to be absent in the list of answer scripts sent to the Examiners. While filling up the marks foils the Examiners also indicate the absence of such roll numbers in the mark foils. Petitioner's name had been printed in the roll sheet relating to the Christ College. The Superintendent of the Christ College Centre finding petitioner absent therefrom had marked him absent. He had also intimated the Examiner in Economics Paper I, that petitioner was absent from that paper. Accordingly, on verification of the roll sheet of Christ College Centre and the mark foils in respect of candidates of that Centre for Economics Paper I, the Tabulator marked the petitioner absent in the tabulation register. petitioner had actually secured 34 marks in the third paper as would appear from the mark foils submitted by the Examiner of that paper. Under the relevant Regulations the marks in different papers of a subject are to be taken together to ascertain the result. Eighty marks were necessary to pass in the subject of Economics but petitioner, as a fact, has secured 61 marks (27+34) and was falling short by 18 marks. By taking recourse to the Hard Case Rules which provide for moderation of results of cases of marginal failure and authorised addition of marks up to 10% of the maximum marks in the written papers, petitioner was assigned 19 marks which were enough for declaring him to have passed. When the petitioner asserted that he had taken examination in Economics Paper 1, the matter was verified and his answer paper was found out from the B.J.B. College Centre papers. It was found that he had secured 18 marks in the said paper. Necessary correction was made in the tabulation register and as he was also passing with the marks obtained by him in Economics Paper I, the addition given to him under the Bard Case Ruled was deleted. It is stated that the petitioner has no cause of action and he is not entitled to any relief.
(3.) Petitioner filed a rejoinder wherein he pointed out that he must have been marked absent in all the papers from the Christ College Centre and if what had been pleaded in paragraph 3 (f) was true, petitioner's result could not have at all been published. No indication has been given by opposite party No. 1, as to why the mistake was with reference to Paper I of Economics only.;


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