Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Nazmin Begam vs The University Of Calcutta & Ors on 21 December, 2016
Author: Debangsu Basak
Bench: Debangsu Basak
1 21.12.2016
.
rc W.P. No. 28771(W) of 2016 Nazmin Begam Versus The University of Calcutta & Ors.
Mr. A. Bose
Mr. Sandip Chakraborty ..For the petitioner
Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharjee
.. For the College Authority
Dr. Sutanu Patra
Mr. Rajib Kr. Basak .. For the University
The petitioner seeks re-evaluation of Political Science General Paper. According to the petitioner, the evaluation of such paper has not been done correctly. In support of such contention reliance is placed on notings made by the Head of the Department of Political Science, Scottish Church College on the answer script.
The University and the college authorities are represented. The writ petition was taken up for hearing on December 14, 2016 when the learned advocate for the petitioner was requested to show the Court at least one answer which according to the petitioner ought to be re-evaluated by awarding of greater marks.
At today's hearing, question no. 5 of Political Science General Paper has been identified. Question no. 5 has two parts. The first part seeks an answer on the understanding of the candidate on nationalism. The second part requires the candidate to take a stand between nationalism and internationalism. Such part also requires the candidate to give reasons for the stand taken. A total of marks is earmarked for the answer. The 20 marks is broken up into 2 parts into 8 and 12. 2 The answer script does not show that the candidate has taken a stand on the second part of the question at all. The evaluator has awarded 4 marks for the answer. The notings in the photocopy of the answer script is that the petitioner ought to be considered for greater marks. The notings have been made at the behest of a professor of the college. The reasons why such person has made such comments have not been made known. Whether it is ethically correct to question an evaluation of a subjective paper and pronounce on the evaluation without ascribing any reasons for the findings arrived at, and that too, in the official capacity as sought to be done herein is debatable. Having a recommendation by itself will not vest the petitioner with an additional right to claim re-evaluation. The petitioner is still required to establish that, the answer given by the petitioner warrants a re-evaluation. Be that as it may, it is not for the writ court to sit in appeal over the wisdom of an evaluator of a subjective paper, particularly, when nothing has been demonstrated that shocks conscience of the Court.
In such circumstances, W.P.No. 28771(W) of 2016 is dismissed without any order as to costs.
Urgent certified website copies of this order, if applied for, be made available to the parties upon compliance of the requisite formalities.
(Debangsu Basak, J.)