- (1.) Sometimes as in life so also in a court of law certain situations bubbled up for consideration which if taken care at the right point in the right perspective, can lead to practicable solution or else it may result in irretrievable consequences.
(2.) In such trajectory, we have been faced with an order under appeal where the University authorities being the Appellants have been pushed to the fore onaccount of three directions given by the learned Single Judge. We would set out the same in seriatim: 1) The University will pay cost to the tune of Rs. 20,000/- to the Petitioner within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order. 2) The Controller of Examination will try to find out the answer scripts of the Petitioner for his M.A. Examination 1990 in 5th and 8th papers both halves and if found out will get the said two papers scrutinized and will complete such process of finding of those papers and scrutiny within 3 months from the date of communication of this order and the controller of examination would communicate the result and sent the revised mark sheet after completion of the aforementioned process to the Petitioner through registered post with A.D. within 3 weeks thereafter. It is hopefully expected that the university will fix up a time limit or publication of the scrutiny results in future for the examinees. The university authorities will send the amount mentioned as cost tithe Petitioner through an account payee bank draft in the name of the Petitioner drawn on a Nationalised Bank and send it through registered post to the Petitioner within the time specified above. The controller of examination will also communicate the revised results of the Petitioner through registered post to the Petitioner and, such exercise is to be completed within a period of 3 months as mentioned above. 3) The Petitioner will also be at liberty to file appropriate proceeding for damage and compensation against the University of Calcutta and its authorities in appropriate forum if he is so advised.
(3.) Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the University, has placed before us the entire judgment and order under appeal and was of the opinion that firstly the order passed by the learned Single Judge imposing cost and direction for initiation of civil proceeding cannot be made tenable. He submitted this on the strength of a Notification (page 37 of the Paper Book) whereby the University was authorized to destroy the answer scripts after retaining them for beyond a period of six months. As such, since the prayer for scrutiny having been made beyond the period of time they had no obligation to retain the scripts. Furthermore, by the same analogy the direction given in Item No. 1 (supra) cannot also be applicable against the University authorities on account of the fact that it has been a practice even before the said Notification came into existence that the authorities do not retain answer scripts of various examinations which they conducted for more than six months in their custody.;