Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Ashis Kumar Sarkar vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 10 January, 2012

Author: Biswanath Somadder

Bench: Biswanath Somadder

                                                     1


10th January,
      2012.
    (SKB)
                                             W.P. No. 10314(W) Of 2011

                                                 Ashis Kumar Sarkar
                                                          Vs.
                                              State of West Bengal & Ors.

                        Mr. Soumya Majumder,
                        Mr. Dibyendu Chatterjee,
                                          ....for the petitioner.

                        Mr. Sakya Sen,
                        Mr. Tapas Ballar Mandal,
                                                ....for the State.

                  The report in the form of an affidavit filed on behalf of the District
            Panchayat & Rural Development Officer, Murshidabad, states, inter alia, as
            follows:
                        "It is found from the answer scripts that in all the answers for
                  which such objection has been raised the petitioner has put two ticks.
                  The answer scripts were evaluated impartially and properly as per
                  procedure generally adopted. Double ticks in two boxes in all the cases
                  may misguide the evaluators.        Moreover, it proves malpractice and
                  possibility of collection of information from examination hall or otherwise
                  towards giving answers."

                  However, from a photocopy of the answer script, which has been annexed
            to the writ petition, it appears that in some of the answers where the writ
            petitioner has used double tick marks, full marks have been awarded by the
            Examiner. Therefore, there appears to be some degree of inconsistency which is
            noticed in respect of the report filed by the District Panchayat & Rural
            Development Officer, Murshidabad, and the evaluation of the answer script
            which has been annexed to the writ petition.
                  This is a factual aspect which the writ Court ought not to go into and in
            such circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction upon the
            District Panchayat & Rural Development Officer, Murshidabad, to take steps to
                                          2


re-evaluate the answer script of the writ petitioner in terms of the procedure
generally adopted by the respondent authorities for evaluation of such answer

scripts. Such re-evaluation shall be completed by the said respondent authorities as expeditiously as possible, preferably within a period of four weeks, but not later than six weeks from date of communication of a photostat certified copy of this order.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocate for the petitioner.

(Biswanath Somadder, J.)