Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Atasi Karmakar vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 26 April, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 April 26 2016 R.C. W.P. 19693 (W) OF 2013 Atasi Karmakar Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors.
=-=-=-
Mr.Allen Felix ...for Petitioner Mr.Achintya Banerjee ...for University The petitioner seeks review of answers to Philosophy Paper-I and Paper-II of the Part-I examination.
The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that the petitioner had applied for scrutiny. Post scrutiny, the petitioner had applied for of the answer script under the Right to Information Act 2005. Upon receipt of the answer script in 2013, and finding that some of the answers have not been marked at all, the petitioner had applied for review. The Court therefore, should direct the University authorities to review the papers.
The University authorities are represented. It is submitted on behalf of the University authorities that, the petitioner did not apply for review within the time allotted by the University authorities. The University had allowed a student to either apply for review or scrutiny. In the present case, the petitioner had applied for scrutiny. Scrutiny as applied for was done when the marks in one paper were increased. The petitioner having exercised the option of scrutiny is not entitled to review now. The answer scripts were properly evaluated. The evaluator did not award any marks in respect of questions pointed out by the petitioner in Court as the evaluator found that no marks were required to be allotted in 2 respect thereof. The question of review of the answer script does not come at this belated stage.
I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record.
The petitioner was afforded an opportunity to apply for review by the University authorities. The University authorities had afforded its students to apply either for scrutiny or for review. The petitioner had availed of the right for scrutiny. On scrutiny a mark was increased. Therefore, the petitioner is not entitled to apply for review having exhausted her remedy on account of exercise of the right to scrutiny.
In such circumstances, I do not find any merit in the present writ petition.
W.P. 19693 (W) OF 2013 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, will be available to the applicant within a week from the date of putting in the requisites.
( DEBANGSU BASAK, J. )