Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Manas Sarkar vs Jadavpur University & Ors on 22 September, 2011
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
1
9.2011 W.P. No. 25692 (W) of 2008
Manas Sarkar ... ... Petitioner
-Versus-
Jadavpur University & Ors. ... ... Respondents
Mr. Anami Sikdar, Mr. Animesh Bhattacharya .. For the Petitioner Mr. Sovan Lal Hazra, Mr. Debabrata Roy .. For the Jadavpur University Heard Mr. Anami Sikdar, learned Counsel for the Petitioner and Mr. Sohan Lal Hazra, learned Counsel for the Jadavpur University.
The Petitioner has prayed for an Order commanding upon the Respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (The Vice-Chancellor and The Head, Department of Economics) to recall and set aside the Order dated 11.9.2008 issued by the Registrar, Jadavpur University as contained in Annexure P-7 of the Writ Petition.
The Petitioner has also prayed for an Order directing the Respondents to recall the results of the reviewed paper in ED Math - II and Statistics - II (2nd year 4th Semester, Honours) and to reconsider the marks of the two papers afresh by applying the grafting theory and/or by giving grace marks. It appears that the Petitioner was dissatisfied with the marks that he had obtained and had therefore applied for review. His representation dated 27.8.2007 as contained in Annexure P-2 of the Writ Petition shows that he had himself admitted that he had not qualified in both the supplementary papers i.e. Math - II (1st year IInd Semester - ED) and Statistics - II (2nd year IVth Semester Honours) papers.
2Having been unsuccessful in both the papers he then applied for review and at that stage, 8 marks were deducted from ten which he had obtained earlier. He therefore, by reason of his Letter/Representation dated 27.8.2007 referred to above, "denounced" the reviewed score and prayed that his earlier marks be retained and he be given the grafting facility. It appears that thereafter nothing happened and as a result of which he came to this Court vide W.P. No. 19644 (W) of 2007 and by an Order dated 21.8.2008, another Hon'ble Single Judge of this Court, on having been told that the Vice-Chancellor of the Jadavpur University was yet to take a decision on the Representation dated 27.8.2007, directed him to take a decision within the period fixed in that Order.
Thereafter on 9.9.2008, a Letter was sent to one Mr. Kuntal Kr. Aich, an Advocate by the Registrar informing him that Manas Sarkar should appear before the Vice-Chancellor for personal hearing on 16.9.2008. It appears however that the hearing actually took place on 11.9.2008 and the Petitioner appears to have given a declaration in the presence of his father and the Controller of Examinations, that the Vice-Chancellor had shown him the faulty answer scripts and that he had himself inspected the same to his satisfaction and that all the queries raised by him were duly answered by the Vice-Chancellor. It appears that thereafter on 14.9.2008 the learned Counsel for the Petitioner sent a legal notice to the Vice-Chancellor saying that the so called declaration was not in the hand of the Petitioner and that the Petitioner had been informed on telephone to see the officer of the Legal Cell of the Jadavpur University on the next day. Consequently, on 12.9.2008 the Petitioner met Mr. Kamaluddin, Legal Cell Officer of the Jadavpur University but he told him to submit another application to the Vice-Chancellor. It appears that on 11.9.2008, a letter was sent to the Petitioner as well as to his lawyer purporting to be under the seal and signature of the 3 Registrar in which the decision of the Vice-Chancellor was communicated. The said Order is contained in Annexure P-7 of the Writ Petition.
In paragraph 23 of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner has made allegations to the effect that the Vice-Chancellor had asked the Petitioner to sign on a paper which was written by the staff of the Jadavpur University and not by the Petitioner and that after the Petitioner had put his signature the said letter was handed over to him.
Today, when the case has been called out, Mr. Sohan Lal Hazra, learned Counsel appearing for the Jadavpur University has produced the photocopy of the Order of the Vice-Chancellor passed on 11.9.2008. The same is taken on record.
The statement made in paragraph 23 cannot be believed because the Petitioner has stated himself that he put his signature on a paper on which things were already written by the staff of the Jadavpur University. The Petitioner is not an illiterate person. If he had read the contents of the letter which was alleged to have been written by somebody else, he could have easily refused to sign the same. Instead, he put his signature on that paper as has been admitted by the Petitioner in paragraph 23. Consequently, the allegations that the Petitioner was asked to sign by the Vice- Chancellor on a piece of paper on which adverse things were alleged to have been written, cannot be believed. Such submissions of Mr. Anami Sikdar are therefore, rejected.
However, this Court does notice that the Order said to have been passed by the Vice- Chancellor has been produced for the first time in Court today on 22.9.2011. There is no explanation forthcoming as to why this Order was withheld from the Petitioner for the last three years and as to why the Registrar communicated the Order only when this Court, by its Order dated 21.8.2008, had caste a mandate upon the Vice-Chancellor to himself pass the Order. He could not 4 have therefore allowed the Registrar to communicate an Order said to have been passed by him on the concerned day.
Under the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is of the view that the Petitioner is entitled to another opportunity of hearing.
As a consequence, the Order dated 11.9.2008 which is contained in Annexure P-7 and which is based on some Order that the Vice-Chancellor may have passed and which was withheld for the last three years is declared to be void and non-est as it was not in conformity with the Order of this Court passed earlier.
The matter stands remanded to the Vice-Chancellor who will now give another opportunity of hearing to the Petitioner or to his authorized legal representative and shall take a fresh decision strictly in accordance with law and within a period of four weeks after the Puja Holidays and communicate the same to the Petitioner within ten days thereafter.
The observations made above with regard to the disbelief expressed by this Court in relation to paragraph 23 should not however prejudice the mind of the Vice-Chancellor.
With the aforesaid observations and directions this Writ Petition stands disposed of. Since the Jadavpur University has chosen not to file any Affidavit-in-Opposition in spite of the Order dated 16.3.2009, no further observation is made on that score.
Subject to an application for certified copy being made and proof in support thereof being produced, let a plain photocopy of this Order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the parties.
( Tapen Sen, J. ) 5