Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Shri Amiya Sinha vs Moulana Abul Kalam Azad University Of ... on 18 January, 2017
Author: Subrata Talukdar
Bench: Subrata Talukdar
18.01.2017
44
b.r
W.P. No. 1158(W) of 2017
Shri Amiya Sinha
-vs-
Moulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology,
West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Somnath Saha
........ for the petitioner.
Ms. Nandini Mitra,
Ms. Sreyashi Chatterjee
......... for the Resp. No.1/University.
Mr. U.K. Jana
......... for the Resp. Nos.5 & 6/
Calcutta Institute of Engineering &
Management.
The matter be treated as on day's list.
Affidavit of Service filed by the petitioner be kept with the
record.
Mr. Somnath Saha, learned advocate appears for the writ
petitioner and submits that the writ petitioner is a student of
Electrical Engineering under the respondents/Calcutta Institute
of Engineering and Management (for short Calcutta Institute) represented by the respondent nos. 5 and 6 to this writ petition. Mr. Saha submits that the petitioner was prevented from appearing in the 5th Semester backlog examination of the said course due to a "human error" on the part of the respondent/Calcutta Institute.
Learned advocate for the petitioner points out that the petitioner ought not be allowed to lose valuable time in his career because of the "human error" on the part of the respondent/Calcutta Institute which resulted in the non- submission of his examination form to the Moulana Abul Kalam Azad University of Technology (for short the University) represented by respondent nos. 1,2,3 and 4 to this writ petition.
Ms. Nandini Mitra, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent/University submits that the petitioner has been permitted to sit for the 5th Semester backlog paper fixed on 20th January, 2017. However, at the present moment there is no scope for the writ petitioner to appear for the 5th Semester backlog paper which has already concluded on 16th January, 2017 and also considering the fact that this writ petition was affirmed on 16th January, 2017 itself.
In support of her submissions, Ms. Mitra relies upon Rule 5.4 of the respondents/University's First Regulations and points out that the petitioner can be allowed to take the backlog 5th Semester paper in the form of a supplementary examination after the final degree examination held at the conclusion of the regular 8th Semester and, before the final degrees for the 8th Semester are announced.
On behalf of the respondent/Calcutta Institute, Mr. U.K. Jana, learned Advocate appears and points out that the respondents/Calcutta Institute made bona fide efforts to repair the human error resulting out of non-submission of the form of the petitioner in respect of his 5th Semester backlog examination. However, such effort did not materilise inspite of the best intentions of the respondent/Calcutta Institute.
Having heard the parties and considering the materials placed, this Court is satisfied at the submissions advanced by the learned advocate for the petitioner that due to the human error as aforesaid, the petitioner was prevented from appearing in the backlog 5th Semester paper held on 16th January, 2017.
This Court also notices the submission made by Ms. Mitra, in her usual fairness, that the petitioner be allowed to appear for 5th Semester backlog paper to be held on 20th January, 2017. However, this Court, only in the facts of this case, is of the further opinion that the petitioner cannot be allowed to suffer any further backlog in his academic career and, is therefore entitled to complete his course at par with his colleagues.
This Court accordingly, taking notice of Ms. Mitra's stand, directs the respondent/University, to make arrangements for the petitioner to appear in the 5th Semester backlog paper already held on the 16th January, 2017 after his 8th Semester paper and, before the announcement of the final degrees, as a special case.
The respondent/University shall also fix responsibility after due enquiry regarding the human error on the part of the respondent/Calcutta Institute and take appropriate steps, as advised.
WP No. 1158(W) of 2017 stands accordingly disposed of without pushing the matter to affidavits.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocate for the parties upon compliance with all necessary formalities.
(Subrata Talukdar, J)