PRASENJIT MANDAL,J. - (1.) THESE three applications are disposed of by this common judgment and order as they involve the common question of fact and law. For convenience, the W.P. No.14123(W) of 2012 is taken up for hearing.
(2.) THE question involved in the matter relates to evaluation of answer scripts of the petitioner at the B.Sc. Part-I (Three Year Honours) Examination, 2011 under the 2009 Regulations (1+1+1 system) in the Honours subject of Statistics. The petitioner appeared at the said examination in the year 2011 under the respondent university. The petitioner got 50 marks total in the Honours subject and his contention is that if 3 marks were awarded to him more, he would have been declared as passed in Honours Course. On the prayer of the petitioner, the copy of the answer scripts was handed over to him. Then, on consultation with his Professors as well as the Head of the Department of his College, he was convinced that there had not been proper evaluation of answers of the petitioner and so, there was a scope for improvement of marks in the Honours subject. Accordingly, the application has been preferred. The respondent university has contended that the evaluation of answer scripts had been done properly by experts. The petitioner having failed to take the opportunity of re- examination, there is no scope to entertain the writ petition now. Having heard the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the petitioner appeared in the aforesaid examination from the Surendranath College under the respondent university and he secured only 50 marks out of Full Marks of 150 whereas the qualifying marks for the said Honours paper are 53.
(3.) WHILE submitting the contention of scope for enhancement of marks, Mr. Satadal Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has stated that the respondent university did not provide for any model answers in respect of the relevant subject. His client took model answers from the internet and on the basis of that, his contention is that his client has answered correctly and so, there is a scope to re-evaluate or re-examine the answers by another expert in the subject at an early date. Mr. Chatterjee has referred to the decision reported in AIR 2008 NOC 711 and thus, he has contended that the Court may grant the prayer for revaluation of the answer script in such a situation.;