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 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court

Paresh Nath Pal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 18 March, 2014

Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti

Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti

                                   IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
                                       Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction
                                             Original Side

             Present :
The Hon'ble Justice Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti
         March 18, 2014

                                                          WP 1132 of 2013
                                                           Paresh Nath Pal
                                                                Vs.
                                                       State of West Bengal & Ors.

                             Mr.S.S. Arefin, Advocate for the petitioner

                             Mr.Raghu Nath Chakraborty, Advocate for the University

                             Mrs. Debjani Roy, Advocate for the State


           The Court :- The respondent no.4 i.e. the Controller of Examinations, University of

Burdwan is directed to affirm an affidavit stating the sequence and the order in which the examiner or the reviewer marked the answer script of the candidate appearing at the B.Sc. Part-II (Hons.) Examination, 2012, in Mathematics (H), Paper-III, bearing Roll 10 SH/124, No. 0002, Registration No.022595 of 2009-2010. He shall indicate how many times the answer script was reviewed, if answer script is reviewed more than once whether that was as per the relevant Regulations of Examinations of the University, if not what was the occasion for re-examining the answer script twice. The Controller of Examinations is further directed to clarify the total marks which were originally awarded to the student in the answer script, . the marks shown in the result and the actual marks he had obtained. He still will have to explain if the actual marks that were awarded to him by the reviewer had been reflected in the result published whether the petitioner would have secured an outright admission to the concerned M.Sc. course.

2

He is further directed to specify in the said affidavit why different marks were given to the petitioner in reply to the query made under the Right to Information Act.

The affidavit shall also specifically indicate whether there was any review or re- examination of the answer script after the University had given reply to the application under the Right to Information Act to the petitioner.

Let the original answer scripts produced in Court be kept in the envelope. Let such affidavit be filed in Court by two weeks.

Matter to appear after two weeks.

(Dr. Sambuddha Chakrabarti, J.) ANC.