Ekalavya Chaudhuri vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 July, 2017

[Cites 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Ekalavya Chaudhuri vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 21 July, 2017

Bench: Arijit Banerjee

                                     1


4    21.07.                     AST 185 of 2017
ns    2017
                             Ekalavya Chaudhuri.
                                    -Versus-
                        The State of West Bengal & Ors.


              Mr. Arunava Ghosh, Sr. Adv.,
              Mr. Mainak Ganguly,
              Ms. Pranati Das
                                       ...           for the Petitioner.

              Mr. Billawadal Bhattacharya,
              Mr. Sirsanya Bandyopadhyay ...       for the University.



                       The petitioner was a student of Jadavpur

              University in the English B.A. (Honours) course.      He

              took the final examination sometime this year.       His

              grievance is that whereas the results of all other

              candidates have been published, the University has

              withheld his result.   Such withholding of result is

              because of a case under the Sexual Harassment Act,

              2013 having been registered against him with the

              college authorities on the basis of complaints made by

              three lady students of the University. An enquiry was

              held by the Internal Complaints Committee (ICC) of the

              University and the finding of the said Committee is that

              the complaint is time barred. It is also not in dispute

              that one of the complainants did not appear before the
                         2


ICC.    The    Committee      has     made        certain

recommendations. The petitioner is not challenging the

suggested recommendations of the Committee. His only

concern is that unless his result is published forthwith,

he would lose out in getting admission to the Presidency

University for his Master's course and he would lose

one whole year. Admittedly, counselling for admission

in Presidency University will start today in a few hours'

time and will also be held tomorrow. Further, July 31,

2017 is the last date for a candidate to apply for the

prestigious Rhodes Scholarship for studying in the

University of Oxford, U. K.      Unless the petitioner's

result is published by the University, he would not be

able to apply for such scholarship.

         It is not disputed that the petitioner is an

extremely meritorious student and has ranked first in

the 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th semesters. The only ground why

the University is still withholding his result is that the

statute provides for an appeal against the finding of the

ICC and a period of 90 days is prescribed within which

the appeal may be filed. The finding of the Committee

is dated June 28, 2017. This means that going by the

stand of the University, the petitioner's result would not
                         3


be published before the end of September, 2017 even if

no appeal is preferred from the ICC's finding.

          More than three weeks have lapsed since the

ICC gave its finding.       Till date no appeal has been

preferred. In my opinion, it will be extremely unfair and

unjust if the petitioner loses the opportunity of getting

admission in the Presidency University and also if he is

prevented   for   applying     for   the   coveted    Rhodes

Scholarship by reason of non-publication of his result.

It is a question of the career of an young man who

admittedly has very impressive academic credentials.

          Justice will not be done, in my opinion, if an

order is not passed as prayed for.             Law is not an

insensitive set of rules. Law bereft of justice is as vain

and futile as a fancy motor car without its engine or a

refrigerator without its compressor. There must be an

element of humanity in the administration of justice.

          In view of the aforesaid and in view of the

urgency     of    the       situation,     I     direct   the

respondent/University and in particular the respondent

nos.2, 3 and 4 to forthwith and in any event by 12.00 noon on July 22, 2017 hand over to the petitioner his results provisionally subject to the final outcome of the 4 writ petition.

This order is passed without prejudice to the rights and contentions of the parties in the pending writ application.

I have been prompted to pass this order keeping in view the future career of a bright young student.

Let affidavit-in-opposition be filed within eight weeks from date. Reply thereto, if any, be filed within two weeks thereafter.

Liberty to mention after completion of affidavits.

Learned Advocate-on-record for the petitioner is granted liberty to communicate the gist of this order to the respondents.

Let a plain copy of this order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to learned advocate-on-record for the petitioner as also to learned Advocate for the University on usual undertaking.

( Arijit Banerjee, J. )

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)