Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) This case reveals a sorry tale. The petitioner appeared in the examination for Diploma in Social Works (Labour Welfare) of the Calcutta University for the year 1990 held in February 1991. Unfortunately for the petitioner he was declared unsuccessful in the said examination and it appears from the mark sheet being Annexure "A" at page 17 of the writ application that out of the total marks 1200 he secured 580 whereas the pass mark is 600. The petitioner then duly applied for review of two papers viz., paper 3 and paper 8 and such ; review is permissible under the rules of the University. That review application was made by the petitioner in June 1991. Thereafter nothing was communicated to the petitioner and that is why the petitioner had to ultimately file the writ petition before this Court in December 1995. During the pendency of this writ petition the University issued a revised mark sheet for the petitioner on the basis of the review made in the matter. That revised mark sheet as now placed K before me by the learned Advocate for the University also shows the petitioner unsuccessful although there has been an increase of 15 mark in paper 3 by such review. In the paper 8 however no increase has been f shown in the revised mark sheet. It is however candidly submitted the learned Advocate for the University that the paper 8 of the petitioner could not be reviewed because the paper could not be traced out and that is also the reason for delay in issuing the result of the review. This is really very unfortunate that the review matter should be kept pending for more than five years and even at that, one paper could net be reviewed because the paper is missing. It is submitted by the learned Advocate for the University that since the paper 8 of the petitioner could not be reviewed as the same could not be traced out no review. result in respect of that paper could be assigned. It is further submitted ; that although there is no such specific rule in this respect, the convention which is followed by the University in respect of the missing paper is to award average marks in favour of the examinee for the missing paper, It is submitted that "average marks" means the marks calculated on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained in the aggregate in all papers d excepting the missing paper. It is further submitted that by calculation of such average marks it has been found that the petitioner's original score in paper 8 does not warrant any change. It may be mentioned here that after the addition of the review marks for the paper 3 the petitioner's total score has been raised to 595 which yet falls short of live marks for reaching the qualifying score for being declared successful in the second class. It is however seen that in the oral examination the petitioner obtained 211 marks out of the total marks of 400. Even if that oral examination score is also taken into consideration for calculating the average marks on the basis of the percentage of marks obtained in all other examinations including the oral examination yet the petitioner's total score does not reach the qualifying score of 600. It is needless to mention that the examinee's case should be considered favourably to every reasonable extent as the circumstances may permit, where any paper is found missing for any reason for which the examinee is not responsible. There is no doubt that the extent of the benefit to be given to the examinee in such circumstances will have to be reasonably determined on the basis of some relevant materials. In the present case find that the highest mark which the petitioner has obtained in any single paper is 53 in the paper 5 out of 100. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case I am clearly of the opinion that for the ends of Justice and for satisfying the requirement of reasonableness in the matter, the petitioner should be awarded 53 in the missing paper 8 which is the highest mark he has received in any single paper.
(2.) In the circumstances direct the University of Calcutta and its concerned authorities to award 53 marks by way of notional review is the missing paper 8 in place of 47 out of 100 and on that basis calculate the total marks of the petitioner and declare him successful and issue necessary mark sheet accordingly in favour of the writ petitioner within two weeks. Such mark sheet shall be handed over to the learned Advocate for the petitioner by the learned Advocate for the University.
(3.) lam also constrained to observe that the University should not have kept this matter pending for more than five years waiting for the parties to approach this Court for relief against culpable inaction on the part of the University.;