S.N.Bhattacharjee, J. - (1.) This appeal arises out of an order dated 21.5.97 passed by a learned single Judge of this court in matter No. 2516 of 1994 whereby the writ petition was allowed by issuing following direc-tions :- "Taking the broad principle from Gopa Chakraborty's case, I direct the University authorities to take average marks of all the papers and award the differential marks against paper No. 6 in case the petitioner gains some more marks in paper No. 1 and paper No. 6, The University authority shall take into consideration of such addition of marks and announce the result within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this judgment, and communicate the same to the petitioner."
(2.) The petitioner was unsuccessful in M.A. Examination as a private candidate for Ancient History and Culture held in the year 1988. A few days after the publication of the result in the month of April, 1989, petitioner obtained mark-sheet and found that he obtained a total marks 317 as against the minimum pass marks being 320. An application for review of the answer scripts of 1st paper and 6th paper filed by him on depositing requisite fees could not bring out any reply from the University of Calcutta in spite of repeated persuasion and reminders for five years. The petitioner then filed a writ application on 18.4.1994 before the learned single Judge praying for a direction upon the respondents to declare the result of review in respect of two papers and to produce the original answer scripts thereof before the court for re-examination by an expert. The respondent No. 2 did not file an affidavit-in-opposition but sent a report under an order of the court indicating that the answer script of the second half of the paper No. 6 was not traceable. It further states that there was no change of marks in the 1st half of paper No. 6 on revaluation and in case of 2nd half the answer script being not traceable average marks were awarded under the order of Vice-Chancellor which came to 20 i.e. 4 marks short of original marks (12 + 24 = 36 - 04 = 32). Similarly on review of the 1st paper the petitioner scored 15 in lieu of 17 in the 1st half and 17 in lieu of 15 in the 2nd half leaving the total unchanged.
(3.) The learned trial Judge after having heard both the sides passed the above order which has been impugned before us on the ground of the order being violative of the Statutory Rules of re-examination framed by the University.;