R. Dayal, J. - (1.) This appeal is directed against the order dated 29th January, 1997 passsed by a Learned Single Judge of this Court in C. R. I No. 4086(W) of 1996 preferred by respondent No 1 being, aggrieved from the marks appearing in the marksheet annexure 'C' to the petition in respect of her Madhyamik examination from Bardhaman Municipal Girls High School in which she appeared and which, in fact, she passed in 1st Division. Two prayers which are material for the purpose of this appeal made by respondent no. 1 in the petition are (A) and (B) which are reproduced as under : (A) A writ of or in the nature of Mandamus commanding the respondents, their men and agents to produce the petitioner's all answer - scripts of Higher Secondary Examination, 1995 before this Hon'ble Court for re-evaluation of the same by independent eminent persons; (B) A writ of or in the nature of Certiorari directing the respondents to certify all relevant records of the case including the petitioner's all answer scripts of Higher Secondary Examination, 1995 so that conscionable justice may be done by quashing the order of the respondents in connection with the petitioner's application dated 12.8.1995.
(2.) On 29th January, 1997 the Learned Single Judge directed the appellants to produce the answer scripts, mark - foils, tabulation - sheet in respect of the petitioner. The Order in its material portion reads : "Affidavits have been exchanged between the parties. The matter is ready for hearing. In course of hearing it has been alleged that result of the post publication scrutiny was published through the school and petitioner's result remain unaltered. Petitioner has reason to believe that the result as indicated in the answer scripts have not been reflected in the marks - foil so also in the tabulation - sheet and that is why the marksheet recorded from the tabulation-sheet possibly, is not correct and has not reflected the correct marks as recorded in the answer - scripts. At the first instance, it appears that it is an wild allegation and the claim of the petitioner has got no basis. This Court has taken exception to this wild allegation after the submissions advanced by the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner on the basis of the instruction of the petitioner and if Court finds that there is no basis of the allegation that mark - foils and tabulation - sheet do not reflect the correct evaluation as recorded in the answer - scripts, or in that event, the Court will be constrained to take steps against the petitioner for coming to this writ jurisdiction without any basis. Whether this Court will take any steps against the petitioner will be considered after examining the answer-scripts mark-foils and tabulation-sheet. Accordingly, direct the Respondents to produce the answer - scripts, mark - foils and tabulation - sheet in respect of the petitioner who was an examinee in the 1995 Examination. These records are to be produced before this Court in a sealed envelope on 20th March, 1997.
(3.) We have heard Mr. P. K. Chatterjee for the appellant and Mr. Tapash Kumar Bhanja for respondents on the question whether the impugned order amounts to 'judgment' within the meaning of Clause 15 of the Letters Patent and as such whether the appeal is maintainable. Learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that by the impugned order, the learned trial Judge has virtually decided the main issue involved in the case regarding the production of answer scripts in favour of the petitioner and thus finally decided the controversy between the parties. According to him, the writ Court is not competent to undertake assessment or review of answer scripts and, therefore, is not competent to direct production of answer scripts either by interim order or by final order and therefore, the impugned order is without jurisdiction. Further the learned Counsel has submitted that it was brought to the notice of the learned trial Judge that the answer scripts were no longer available with the appellants as they are retained only for one year after completion of the examination and as such the order has exposed the Council to threat of contempt. He has in support of his submissions referred to Indrajmal Shyamsukla v. Bhagat Singh Dugar, (1991)2 Cal LJ 321 ; Nandan Pictures v. Art Pictures, AIR 1956 Cal 428 ; Maharashtra State Board of Secondary and Higher Secondary Education & Anr. v. Paritosh Bhupesh Kurmarsheth, AIR 1984 SC 1543 ; Arun D. Desai v. High Court of Bombay, 1984 Supp SCC 372 ; University of Calcutta v. Anindya Kumar Das, (1992)2 Cal LJ 339 and Srumoyu Ghosh v. State of W. B., AIR 1996 Cal 1. On the other hand learned Counsel for respondent No. 1 has submitted that the impugned order has not decided any controversy between the parties and certain documents have been directed to be produced by the Court only to do justice between the parties and the real issue between the parties as to whether respondent No. 1 is entitled to relief of re - evaluation of her answer books remains to be decided.;