Gitesh Ranjan Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) This is a writ petition filed by the petitioner for directing the concerned respondents, namely, the authorities of the University of Calcutta to publish the result of the petitioner and issue fresh marksheet in respect of the review of certain papers of the Final Law Examination, 1986. The petitioner passed the Preliminary Examination of Law, 1984 as well as the Intermediate Examination of Law, 1985 in respect of the three year degree course of law of the University of Calcutta. He appeared in the Final Law Examination of 1986 held in January, 1988. In paragraph 3 of the writ petition it is stated that unfortunately the petitioner could not succeed in the final law examination for want of 10(ten) marks only. He then applied for re-examination/review of Paper I (Public International Law) and Paper V (Labour Law). The result of such review was however not published and in fact the petitioner moved from pillar to post for obtaining his review result but ultimately he came to learn that while there was no change of marks in the review of Paper I, the Paper V was missing. Subsequently he filed the present writ petition. A very sorry state of affairs is revealed from the affidavits and reports which have been filed before this court. It appears that Sri Amit Sen, Dean of the Faculty of Law, University of Calcutta re-examined the Paper I of the petitioner and it is the version of the concerned authorities that there was no change in the marks of the said Paper I of the petitioner in such review. There is however a severe controversy as to whether Sri R.P. Banerjee who was given the Paper V of the petitioner to re-examine the same at all returned the paper after re-examination. Sri R.P. Banerjee wants to say that he re-examined the papers in the University under the supervision of Sri Amit Sen which is however denied by Sri Sen. It however cannot be ascertained whether as a matter of fact, the Paper V of the petitioner was at all re- examined and whether the same was returned to the University and if so, what happened to that paper thereafter. These are all very disturbing features which show a very sorry performance on the part of the university authorities in the matter of re-examination of papers.
(2.) Be that as it may, the fact remains that the Paper V of the petitioner is missing and ;it is not known whether the re- examination of that paper was at all made and if so, what was the result thereof. The university has however come up with the case that Paper I of the petitioner was re-examined and there was no change of marks. That being so, so far as the Paper I is concerned the matter is set at rest. But since Paper V is missing, obviously the matter cannot be left at that. In view of my decision in Dilip Bhattacharjee v. State of West Bengal, 1996(2) CLJ, 181, the petitioner is required to be awarded notional marks in Paper V equal to the highest marks obtained by him in a single paper. It appears that in Paper V (Labour Law) the petitioner originally got 42 marks. There were six independent papers. Of those six papers the petitioner has scored the highest being 48, in Paper II. Therefore, according to the said decision in Dilip Bhattacharjee (supra) the petitioner has to be given 48 marks for the missing Paper V. As we have seen, originally he got 42 marks in that paper. Now if he is given 48 marks in that paper by reason of the fact that the said paper is missing there occurs an increase of six marks only. As we have seen according to the petitioner's case in paragraph 3 of the writ petition he could riot succeed for a deficiency of 10 marks. Therefore even an increase of six marks in Paper V does not help hire to make up the deficiency of 10 marks and thus he cannot be declared to have passed the said examination.
(3.) That apart, from the affidavit-in-opposition affirmed by the controller of examinations, University of Calcutta, it appears that the petitioner subsequently appeared in the Law Final Examination, 1988 held in September, 1989 and also the Law Final Examination, 1989, held in June, 1991 and in both these two examinations also he could not come out successful and his score in both the said examinations in Labour Law was even less than what he scored in the final examination of 1986. The present writ petition has been filed in 1997 but unfortunately the petitioner did not disclose in the writ petition that he appeared in the subsequent final examinations in 1989 and 1991. In all fairness he should have disclosed the fact in his writ petition that on subsequent two occasions also he appeared in the final law examination but he did not do that. And for this reason alone also the writ petition is liable to be dismissed. In any view of the matter I am of the opinion that the writ petition has to be dismissed although the performance of the University Authorities regarding the review result of the petitioner is disappointingly reprehensible. The writ petition is dismissed. No cost is however ordered. No cost is however ordered. ;