Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sneha Chattopadhyay vs University Of Calcutta & Ors on 5 April, 2019
Author: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
Bench: Ashis Kumar Chakraborty
1
05.04.2019
Item no. 15
D.D WP 20053 (W) of 2017
Sneha Chattopadhyay
Vs.
University of Calcutta & Ors.
Mr. J. D. Roy
... ... For the Petitioner
Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy
... ...For the Respondent no. 1-3
In the year 2012 the petitioner got herself admitted to the respondent no. 6 college, to pursue her B.Sc. (Honours) in Statistics under the respondent no.1, University of Calcutta. The petitioner successfully cleared the Part-I and Part-II examinations conducted by the respondent No. 1 University. In the year 2016 she appeared for the Part- III B.Sc. (Honours) Statistics Examination, conducted by the respondent no.1 University. On June 21, 2010 the respondent no.1 University declared the result of the said examination. After collecting the mark sheet issued by the respondent no. 1 for Part-III B.Sc. (Honours) Statistics Examination the petitioner found to have obtained only 68 marks out of 200 in the theory paper and she has not been able to retain her Honours. She filed an application under Right to Information Act, 2 2002 before the respondent no. 1 and obtained the copy of her answer script of paper-VI. Thereafter, the petitioner filed a representation before the Principal of the respondent no. 6 college that in view of the shortfall of 2 marks in Paper-VIA she is deprived of obtaining Honours in Statistics. The petitioner forwarded a copy of her answer script of Paper- VIA, as had been made available by the respondent no. 1 University and requested the Principal of the respondent No. 6 college to take appropriate steps. After receiving the copy of the answer script of Paper- VIA submitted by the petitioner, the Principal of the respondent no. 6 college got the same checked by the departmental teachers and they observed that the petitioner may be awarded an extra mark in answer to question no. 10.b or in question no. 11.b as the step mark. According to the petitioner, the said request of the Principal of the respondent no.6 did not evoke any positive response from the respondent no.4, the Controller of Examination of the University. In these facts, the petitioner has filed the present writ petition claiming, inter alia, a direction upon the respondent no. 1 University, to re-evaluate her answer script in Paper- VIA in Statistics (Honours) Part-III in the light of the observations made by the professors of the respondent no. 6 college.
It is the specific case of the petitioner that if the re-evaluation of her answer script in the said paper-VIA results in increase of 1 mark, as per the examination rules of the respondent no.1 University she would be 3 allotted 1 grace mark and consequently, she would be able to retain her Honours in statistics.
The present writ petition has been contested on behalf of the respondent no. 1 University, and the respondent no. 4. In their affidavit- in-opposition, the said respondents have alleged that after receiving the request from the respondent no. 6 college, the answer script of the petitioner in Paper-VIA of Statistics (Part-III) was referred to the Chairperson of the Board of Studies (Statistics) who had opined that no extra mark can be awarded to the petitioner and the same was communicated to the respondent no.6. However, the said respondents did not dispute the case made out by the petitioner that if after re- evaluation of her answer script in the said paper VIA she obtains 1 more mark, as per its regulations the respondent no.1 would grant 1 grace mark and she will be entitled to retain her Honours.
After considering the facts of the case and the extant regulations of the respondent no. 1 University, it appears that if the petitioner is even awarded 1 mark against her answers in the answer script of paper VI-A then the respondent no. 1 University shall grant a grace of 1 mark which would entitle the petitioner to obtain Honours in Statistics. The present case involves the fate of the petitioner in order to retain her Honours degree as well as to pursue higher studies.
4
Considering the facts of the case, I find that the Principal of the respondent no. 6 college had placed the observation of five faculty members that the petitioner can be granted an additional 1 mark in question no.10.b or in question no.11.b in the said paper VI-A. However, the finding of the Chairman of the respondent no. 1 University does not record as to why such observation of at least five faculty members of the college is not correct or not acceptable.
For the reasons as aforesaid, the respondent no. 4 is directed to forthwith take steps for re-evaluation of the answer script of the petitioner in paper VI-A of statistics in Part-III, B.Sc. (Honours) and communicate the result to the petitioner within six weeks from the date of communication of this order.
Let this application appear, under the heading "To Be Mentioned", after six weeks to ascertain, if the above direction has been complied with by the concerned respondent.
Certified website copy of the order, if applied for, be urgently made available to the parties, subject to compliance with all requisite formalities.
(Ashis Kumar Chakraborty, J.)