RABINDRA NATH GHOSAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA
LAWS(SC)-2002-9-93
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA (FROM: CALCUTTA)
Decided on
September 30,2002
RABINDRA NATH GHOSAL
Appellant
VERSUS
University Of Calcutta And Ors.
Respondents
Referred Judgements :-
LUCKNOW DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY VS. M K GUPTA [REFERRED]COMMON CAUSE A REGISTERED SOCIETY VS. UNION OF INDIA [REFERRED]
Cited Judgements :-
JINDAL STEEL AND POWER LTD VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2011-12-249] [REFERRED TO]GENBA LAXMAN PAWAGI VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA & ORS [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-5] [REFERRED TO]
KONTO WARISA VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(GAU)-2022-3-79] [REFERRED TO]
S. RUCKMANI AND ORS. VS. TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD LIMITED AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2016-1-172] [REFERRED TO]
N.NIZHALKODI VS. CHAIRMAN [LAWS(MAD)-2012-8-285] [REFERRED TO]
PRASHANT SHARMA VS. MAHRSHI PATANJALI, SANSKRIT SANSTHAN BHOPALAM [LAWS(MPH)-2015-7-15] [REFERRED TO]
RATHEESH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2013-7-154] [REFERRED TO]
KAPKHANLUN ZOU @ KAPLUN VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2014-1-9] [REFERRED TO]
KISHOR VS. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA, THROUGH SECRETARY, HOME DEPA [LAWS(BOM)-2018-6-47] [REFERRED TO]
AMRIK SINGH JOGINDER SINGH RICE MILLS OWNERS VS. STATE OF PUNJAB [LAWS(P&H)-2004-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
PUSPALATA PUROHIT VS. STATE OF ODISHA [LAWS(ORI)-2016-12-1] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF GUJARAT AND ANOTHER VS. THE I.R.C.G. AND OTHERS [LAWS(SC)-2017-8-49] [REFERRED TO]
K.V. HANNA THASNIM VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-27] [REFERRED TO]
SUBBULAKSHMI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2009-11-144] [FOLLOWED ON]
D. NARAYANASAMY VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, TIRUVARUR [LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-77] [REFERRED TO]
BHARAT OVERSEAS BANK LIMITED VS. ASHIMA LIMITED [LAWS(GJH)-2004-4-84] [REFERRED TO]
KANAGARAJ VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR [LAWS(MAD)-2019-9-676] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF KERALA VS. M. GOPALAN [LAWS(KER)-2014-11-125] [REFERRED TO]
GENBA LAXMAN PAWAGI & ORS. VS. STATE OF MAHARASTRA & ORS. [LAWS(BOM)-2017-3-44] [REFERRED TO]
M.RAMESH VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2021-9-107] [REFERRED TO]
GATAKALA VENKATESWARLU VS. UNION OF INDIA [LAWS(DLH)-2006-2-6] [REFERRED TO]
T M KAMALANATHAN VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2008-10-266] [REFERRED TO]
KUMARI VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU, (MADRAS) [LAWS(MAD)-2017-12-37] [REFERRED TO]
THE GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU AND ORS. VS. J. MERCY RUMYA FLORENCE AND ORS. [LAWS(MAD)-2015-3-272] [REFERRED TO]
SAVITRI DEVI VS. STATE OF U.P. [LAWS(ALL)-2019-5-304] [REFERRED TO]
HEERA LAL YADAV VS. STATE OF BIHAR [LAWS(PAT)-2003-9-162] [REFERRED]
P P M THANGAIAH NADAR FIRM VS. GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2006-9-121] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF NAGALAND VS. MOBA CHANGKAI [LAWS(GAU)-2021-5-27] [REFERRED TO]
STATE OF A P VS. J K TRADERS OF RAMAKEISHNA 70 MM THEATRE [LAWS(APH)-2010-12-108] [REFERRED TO]
SAMOKSHA GUPTA VS. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION, M P [LAWS(MPH)-2014-1-59] [REFERRED TO]
M ARULAPPAN VS. SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD DEPARTMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2014-2-200] [REFERRED TO]
S ANAND VS. STATE OF TAMIL NADU REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT [LAWS(MAD)-2012-7-1] [REFERRED TO]
SANJEET SINGH KAILA VS. UNION OF INDIA AND ANR. [LAWS(DLH)-2017-5-5] [REFERRED TO]
P. SIVA SHAKTHIVEL VS. CHAIRMAN, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD, (MADRAS) [LAWS(MAD)-2017-7-39] [REFERRED TO]
UMAKANT KISAN MANE VS. DEAN, RAJAWADI MUNICIPAL HOSPITAL, GHATKOPAR (EAST) [LAWS(BOM)-2015-12-220] [REFERRED]
ILALAYAKONJER VS. ASSAM AGRICULTURAL UNIVERSITY [LAWS(GAU)-2003-6-25] [REFERRED TO]
SARASU VS. CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT OF TAMIL NADU [LAWS(MAD)-2017-8-149] [REFERRED TO]
UNIVERSITY OF KERALA VS. MOLLOY FRANCIS [LAWS(KER)-2004-7-5] [REFERRED TO]
LINISH, S/O LIAKKATH VS. STATE OF KERALA [LAWS(KER)-2018-8-12] [REFERRED TO]
MOHAN LAL VS. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH [LAWS(HPH)-2019-7-138] [REFERRED TO]
PRAFULLA KUMAR BISI VS. STATE OF ODISHA AND OTHERS [LAWS(ORI)-2016-11-25] [REFERRED TO]
M BALAGURU VS. COMMISSIONER OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2010-5-9] [REFERRED TO]
CHAMPAK KUMAR VS. SECRETARY, BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION [LAWS(MPH)-2007-8-160] [REFERRED]
NERELLA DHANUNJAYA VS. COMMISSIONER MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF WARANGAL [LAWS(APH)-2006-12-31] [REFERRED TO]
SANTHOSHIMA PARBOILED MODERN RICE MILL GASDIPALLY VILLAGE VS. DISTRICT COLLECTOR NALGONDA DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2010-6-54] [REFERRED TO]
G VENKAT REDDY SAI REDDY VS. EXECUTIVE OFFICER GP KOLLAPUR VILLAGE AND MANDAL MAHABUBNAGAR DISTRICT [LAWS(APH)-2010-4-40] [REFERRED TO]
HANNA THASNIM, K.V. VS. STATE OF KERALA AND ORS. [LAWS(KER)-2014-3-162] [REFERRED TO]
ARULMERI VS. SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER [LAWS(MAD)-2012-10-164] [REFERRED TO]
MAMOOTH VS. CHAIRMAN CUM MANAGING DIRECTOR, TAMIL NADU ELECTRICITY BOARD; COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI; INSPECTOR OF POLICE [LAWS(MAD)-2016-4-447] [REFERRED]
THE COMMISSIONER, CORPORATION OF CHENNAI RIPPON BUILDINGS CHENNAI VS. THE STATE OF TAMIL NADU REP. BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION AND WATER SUPPLY DEPARTMENT FORT ST. GEORGE CHENNAI [LAWS(MAD)-2016-11-96] [REFERRED TO]
MUNICIPAL CORPORATION OF DELHI VS. ASSOCIATION OF VICTIMS OF UPHAAR TRAGEDY [LAWS(SC)-2011-10-32] [REFERRED TO]
KAPKHANLUN ZOU ALIAS KAPLUN VS. STATE OF MANIPUR [LAWS(MANIP)-2014-1-1] [REFERRED TO]
JUDGEMENT
Variava, J. -
(1.)This appeal is against the judgment dated 7th February, 2000.
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The appellant appeared for M. A. Examination in Islamic History and Culture held by the Calcutta University in November, 1984. The result of the examination was announced on 6th June, 1985. However the result of the appellant was not declared. The appellant then took admission in the Law Course. On 9th December, 1990, the appellant wrote to the Controller of Examinations and requested that his result, of the examination held in 1984, be declared. He also wrote to the Vice-Chancellor on 14th February, 1991 and made the same request. He then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta for issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding publication of his result. On 12th July, 1991, the result of the appellant was declared and he was found to have failed. The appellant has not challenged the result of the examination and has accepted the fact that he has failed.
(3.)With the declaration of the result nothing really survived in the Writ Petition. However the learned single Judge of the High Court appointed a Committee presided over by a retired High Court Judge to investigate why the result had not been declared for so many years. The Committee gave the following findings :
"1) The candidate know that he was unsuccessful soon after the publication of the result.
2) In the absence of relevant papers it cannot be said that the Examiner put different marks on the 2 slips of the Tabulators.
3(a) The scrutineer failed in his duty in not detecting the discrepancy and yet putting his signature signifying that the marks on the Tabulation sheets were correct.
(b) His conduct in not appearing before the Enquiry Committee does not speak well.
4) The Tabulators did not notice the discrepancy and even if they had noticed, they did not point out the same to the authority. They were under obligation to do so.
5) The dealing Assistant ought to have been more vigilant in pursuing this matter.
6) The Section-in-Charge of the Result Section ought to have made enquiry about incomplete result. The Section-in-Charge of the Result Section or for the matter of that any officer in the Controller's department must have to see that a result does not remain incomplete for long years.
7) The Controller should find out ways and means and should take such steps so that in future result does not remain incomplete for years as in the present case.
8) I do not find any conspiracy between the candidate and any staff of the University."
(2.)Briefly stated the facts are as follows : The appellant appeared for M. A. Examination in Islamic History and Culture held by the Calcutta University in November, 1984. The result of the examination was announced on 6th June, 1985. However the result of the appellant was not declared. The appellant then took admission in the Law Course. On 9th December, 1990, the appellant wrote to the Controller of Examinations and requested that his result, of the examination held in 1984, be declared. He also wrote to the Vice-Chancellor on 14th February, 1991 and made the same request. He then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta for issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus commanding publication of his result. On 12th July, 1991, the result of the appellant was declared and he was found to have failed. The appellant has not challenged the result of the examination and has accepted the fact that he has failed.
(3.)With the declaration of the result nothing really survived in the Writ Petition. However the learned single Judge of the High Court appointed a Committee presided over by a retired High Court Judge to investigate why the result had not been declared for so many years. The Committee gave the following findings :
"1) The candidate know that he was unsuccessful soon after the publication of the result.
2) In the absence of relevant papers it cannot be said that the Examiner put different marks on the 2 slips of the Tabulators.
3(a) The scrutineer failed in his duty in not detecting the discrepancy and yet putting his signature signifying that the marks on the Tabulation sheets were correct.
(b) His conduct in not appearing before the Enquiry Committee does not speak well.
4) The Tabulators did not notice the discrepancy and even if they had noticed, they did not point out the same to the authority. They were under obligation to do so.
5) The dealing Assistant ought to have been more vigilant in pursuing this matter.
6) The Section-in-Charge of the Result Section ought to have made enquiry about incomplete result. The Section-in-Charge of the Result Section or for the matter of that any officer in the Controller's department must have to see that a result does not remain incomplete for long years.
7) The Controller should find out ways and means and should take such steps so that in future result does not remain incomplete for years as in the present case.
8) I do not find any conspiracy between the candidate and any staff of the University."
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.