Dipak Prakas Kundu, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner in his writ petition has, inter alia, prayed a writ of or in the nature of mandamus commanding and/or directing the respondents Nos. 2 to 9 to act in accordance with Law and to forthwith publish the result of the petitioner Roll-Cal No 87/90 in LL. B. Part II Examination, 1989.
(2.) It is the case of the writ petitioner that he took admission under Calcutta University Law College in Hazra Campus in 5 years LL. B. Course The writ petitioner in the year 1988-89 appeared in Part Examination of LL.B 5 years course and the writ petitioner passed the said examination and obtained 44.8% marks in the said examination. The copy of the mark-sheet has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 'C' The writ petitioner also appeared in Part II LL.B. Examination in the year 1989-90 and his Roll No was Roll-Cal No. 87/90 and for the same the Controller of Examination issued the admit- card in favour of the petitioner. A copy of the said admit card has been annexed with the writ petition as Annexure D'. It is the case of the writ petitioner that he day today appeared in the examination hall and after answering the questions he submitted the answer papers before the hall-in-charge before leaving the examination hall and the writ petitioner appeared in all the papers. The petitioner stated that on or about 1st week of November, 1990 all on a sudden the petitioner received a letter from the Secretary, Board of Discipline, Calcutta University dated 30.10.90 for appearing before the Sub-committee of the Board of Discipline and it was also alleged in the said letter that an investigation would be made against the writ petitioner on the basil of a report that the writ petitioner had committed breach of discipline in the said examination and a copy of charge sheet was also sent to the writ petitioner along with the notice dated 30.10.90. A copy of the said letter dated 30.10.90 and a copy of charge sheet dated 30.10.90 have been collectively annexed with the writ petition as Annexure 'E'. It is the case of the writ petitioner that be appeared before the Sub-committee of the Board of Discipline on 22.11.90 and denied the charges illegally levelled against him and the writ petitioner also declared before the Committee that he is innocent and not guilty of the charges and further stated that he never accepted unfair means in the said examination. It is stated that the writ petitioner on or about 24th December, 1990 filed in application for information regarding the result of the disciplinary committee and/or decision of the said committee and that the authority concerned never disclosed the decision of the committee to the writ petitioner. It is the case of the writ petitioner that on 14th January, 1991 the respondent authorities concerned handed over a copy of the decision dated 28th December, 1990 to the petitioner. A copy of the said decision has been annexed to the writ petition as Annexure 'G' It appears from the aforesaid decision that the writ petitioner was intimated that his LL B. Part II Examination, 1989, had been cancelled for breach of discipline committed by him at the aforesaid examination and that he had also been debarred from appearing any examination of the said University for a period of two years.
(3.) It appears from the writ petition that being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the aforesaid decision regarding breach of discipline the petitioner moved an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and Mohitosh Mojumder, J. after hearing the submissions made on behalf of both the parties, inter alia, passed the following order:- "Considering the facts and circumstances of the cases as also the submission of Mr. Partha Pratim Mukherjee, the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, that the petitioner was not given an opportunity of being heard, I am of the view that the order impugned in the writ application does not disclose any reason as the same appears to be capsuled in character. In my view, the concerned authority shall decide the matter de novo within a period of seven days from the date. The petitioner shall be given opportunity of hearing on Friday next when he would appear. No adjournment shall be granted to the petitioner. The embargo thus imposed upon him shall remain operative till the decision of the concerned authority is reached. In the event the concerned authority decides the matter in favour of the petitioner, the petitioner shall be allowed to appear at the ensuing 5 years LL. B. Examination in respect of the part for which he is eligible to appear. The order shall be passed after taking into account the exceptions and/or objections taken by the petitioner in the writ application. The copy of the writ application shall be treated as grievances of the petitioner. Let another copy of the writ application be served upon Mr. Pranob Kumar Cbattopa-dhyay the Learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the University, for the purpose of treating the same as the grievances of the petitioner during the course of the day. As indicated above, if the decision goes in favour of the writ petitioner, the University authority shall allow the petitioner to appear at the Examination to be held in the month of March 1991. The embargo remain in force for ten (10) days and the petitioner shall be communicated the decision of the authority by Monday week". (emphasis added);