N.K.Batabyal, J. - (1.) The writ petitioner was a minor and a student of the Higher Secondary level of School education when the writ petition was filed. He has attained majority during the pendency of the writ application. He passed the Madhyamik Examination/Pariksha held under the W.B.S.E.B. in 1990 appearing from Amar Krishna Pathshala, Bhaipara, North 24 pgs., and was placed in the the Divn. A xerox copy of the Marksheet has been annexed with the writ petition and marked as letter-'A'. He appeared in the Science stream with English, Bengali, Physics, Chemistry. Mathematics and Biology in the H.S. Examination held in April. 1992 from Bhatpam Higher Secondary School in due time. After the publication of the results, the petitioner came to know upon receipt of the Mark-sheet that he was given less than pass-marks in Mathematics and physics, though the marks given in other subjects were not upto his expectations. A copy of the Mark-sheet of Higher Secondary Examination has been annexed with the writ-petition and marked as letter-'B'. On 22.8.92. he applied for post-publication scrutiny in all the six subjects in both papers on account of his dissatisfaction with the marks given in all the subjects. Upto the date of the filing of the writ-petition. the results of the post-publication scrutiny were not communicated to the petitioner; so he gave a reminder to that effect. A copy of the reminder is annexed with the writ-petition and marked as letter-'C'. The petitioner grew impatient upon the passing of the last date for admission to B.A. class under Calcutta University on 30.11.92 and he became suspicious that the answer scripts were not properly examined and also not available. It has been submitted by the petitioner that he has nothing to complain against the President, W.B. Council of Higher Secondary Examination, Bikash Bhavan, Salt Lake, Calcutta, (respondent No. 3) except that the petitioner is very much anxious to know if his answer scripts were properly examined and if those answer scripts are still available. He prays for production of those answer scripts before the Court for judicial inspection as there is no other way to enable him to look into the answer scripts. Being aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the conduct of the respondents so far as the result of the petitioner in the Higher Secondary Examination held in April. 1992, is concerned, the petitioner has come to this Court praying the following reliefs:- "(a) a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to show-cause as to why the mark-sheet issued by the respondent No. 3 shall not be taken as improper and shall not be replaced after proper appraisal of the performance of the petitioner in the subjects mentioned above by a new Mark-sheet; (b) a writ in the nature of certiorari commanding the respondents No. 3 & 4 to produce the twelve answer scripts of these subject for ends of justice on the date to be fixed by the Court; and for other reliefs".
(2.) In the affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 and 4, the material allegations-made in the writ petition except those that are matters of records have been dented. It has been stated in paragraph-5 that the application made by the petitioner for post-publication scrutiny was duly and promptly considered and such scrutiny was made and the result thereof was communicated to the petitioner's Institution in the month of January, 1993. It has also been denied that the petitioner's answer scripts were misplaced and were not available. It has been further denied that the petitioner was entitled to look into the answers scripts. It has also denied that the petitioner has any right to make a prayer for production of answer scripts in Court or to have the same re-examined by an independent examiner. According to the respondents, the writ-petition is malafide and is liable to be rejected. It further appear from the order dated 19.8.94 that on the prayer of Mr. Chatterjee, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 & 4, the application for vacating the order dated 6.8.93 was prayed to be treated as affidavit-in-opposition filed on behalf of the respondents Nos. 3 & 4 and that prayer has been allowed at the time of hearing and the same has been treated as part of affidavit-in-opposition.
(3.) In a supplementary affidavit filed on 15th September, 1994, the writ petitioner has stated that his date of birth is the 25th day of May, 1975.;