Basupriya Chattopadhyay vs University Of Burdwan & Anr on 6 January, 2020

[Cites 1, Cited by 1]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Basupriya Chattopadhyay vs University Of Burdwan & Anr on 6 January, 2020

Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty

                                               1

              06.01.2020
              rpan / A18
              Court No.15
                W.P. No. 21112 (W) of 2019
                Basupriya Chattopadhyay
                       - Versus -
              University of Burdwan & Anr.

       Mr. Arunava Ganguly
                    ... for the Petitioner.
       Mr. N. C. Bihani,
       Mrs. Papiya Banerjee Bihani
                      ... for the University.


       Affidavit of service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.

       Mr. Ganguly, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the

petitioner appeared in the Bachelor of Arts Part II Hons. Examination, 2018 but he was not

satisfied with the marks awarded in respect of Mathematics Paper - II and Paper - III. He,

thereafter, submitted an application under the Right to Information Act, 2005 with a

request to supply him the answer scripts. Upon availing the same, the petitioner found that

the scripts have not been appropriately marked. Two teachers went through the petitioner's

answer scripts and were of the opinion that he had been given less marks. Stating such fact

the petitioner submitted a representation to the respondent no.2 on 25th September, 2019

for reassessment but the same was not considered. Aggrieved thereby, the petitioner has preferred the present writ petition.

Mr. Ganguly submits that necessary direction be issued upon the said respondent no.2 to reassess the petitioner's answer scripts.

Mr. Bihani, learned advocate appearing for the University submits that the petitioner applied for post publication review. Upon such review there was no enhancement of marks. There is no provision for reassessment of the answer scripts after post publication review. Let the documents, as produced, be kept on record.

Heard the learned advocates appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials on record.

It appears that the petitioner applied for post publication review of the answer scripts and upon such review there was no enhancement of marks. No provision has been brought to the notice of this Court which entitles the petitioner to have his answer scripts reassessed after post publication review.

In view thereof, no interference is called for in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly, dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

(Tapabrata Chakraborty, J.)

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)