- (1.) THE broad is, sues raised in the writ petitions, registered as W. P. Nos. 208, 5302 (W), 5743 (W), 5744 (W) and 18189 (W), all of 2001 being identical to the issue involved in MAT No. 275 of 2008, a learned single Judge of this court by diverse orders have referred the same to the Division Bench for analogous hearing. The writ petitions have since been heard along with the writ appeal referred to above and all the proceedings shall stand concluded by this common judgment.
(2.) THE facts of each case may now "be noticed. In the writ appeal preferred by the University of Calcutta (hereafter the University)and its officers, judgment and order dated 28-3-2008 passed by a learned single Judge of this Court allowing W. P. No. 22176 (W) of 2007 is the subject-matter of challenge. The facts giving rise to the writ petition is that the petitioner, Pritam Rooj (hereafter Pritam)had taken the B. Sc. Part II (Three Year honours) Examination, 2007 conducted by the University. Although Pritam was successful in clearing the examination, he was dissatisfied with the marks awarded to him in respect of Papers V and VI. He obtained 28 and 36 marks respectively out of a maximum 100. In terms of the regulations framed by the University, he applied for review of his answer scripts in respect of the aforesaid two papers. On revaluation, his marks in Paper V increased by 4 marks while there was no change in Paper VI. On or about 14-8-2007, he had made an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 (hereafter the RTI Act) seeking inspection of his answer scripts. That application was turned down by the Registrar of the University, who is also its Public Information Officer in terms of the RTI Act, by a letter dated 17-9-2007 which reads as follows : "in response to your above application I am to inform you that it has been decided that henceforth no inspection of any answer script of any examination conducted by the university shall be allowed to any applicant under the Right to Information Act, 2005. "
(3.) FEELING aggrieved by the said order, pritam preferred the writ petition seeking production of the answer scripts before the hon'ble Court for revaluation/re-examination by an expert examiner as also for withdrawal/recalling of the order of rejection dated 17-9-2007. The petition Was contested by the University. On hearing the parties, the writ petition was allowed by the learned single Judge by an elaborate judgment dated 28-3-2008 (since reported in AIR 2008 Cal 118. The operative part of the order reads as follows: "90. As much as an examining body may owe an obligation to its set of examiners, it owes a greater fiduciary duty to its examinees. The examinees are at the heart of a system to cater to whom is brought the examining body and its examiners. If it is the right of a voter, for the little man to have the curriculum vitae of the candidates who seek his insignificant vote, the right of the examinee is no less to seek inspection of his ahswerscript. 91. Whether it is on the anvil of the legal holy trinity of justice, equity and good conscience, or on the test of openness and transparency being inherent in human rights, or by the myriad tools of construction, or even by the Wednesbury yardstick of reasonableness, the State Public Information Officer's rejection of the writ petitioner's request to obtain his answerscript cannot be sustained. The University will proceed to immediately offer inspection of the paper that the petitioner seeks. A writ of Mandamus in that regard must issue. The order of September17, 2007 is set aside. " The petitioner in W. P. No. 208 of 2008 is the father of an examinee who had appeared in the Madhyamik Examination, 2007 conducted by the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education (hereafter the WBBSE ). The examinee concerned secured first division but due to shortage of 4 (four) marks only, he fell short of 75% marks in the aggregate which would have enabled him to the award of a 'star'. The examinee obtained 59, 73 and 50 marks in the English, Physical Science and History papers respectively out of a maximum 100 and felt aggrieved.;