Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
21674W/2013 on 20 September, 2013
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
1
September 20,
2013.
r.c.
W.P. 21674 (w) of 2013
Mr. Soumitra Bandhopadhyay
Mr. Anirban Sarkar
...for Petitioner
Mr. R.N. Chakraborty
...for University.
The petitioner appeared at the B.A. Part‐II
examination in 2012 from the University of
Burdwan in English. His Part‐II result was
published on January 28 2013. The petitioner
thereafter filed an application under the Right to
Information Act for supply of the photocopy of
the answer scripts of two papers, which were
provided to him.
The petitioner by this writ petition has
prayed for a writ in the nature of mandamus
directing the authorities to reexamination or
review the answer scripts of paper‐III of B.A.
Part‐II examination as he was not satisfied with
the awarding of marks.
Mr. Chakraborty, the learned advocate for
the respondents submits the time to file
application for review of the answer script has not expired and the petitioner did not exercise his right in the meantime.
2Heard the learned advocate for the respective parties and after going through the petition, I have been informed that time to file the application for review is 30 days from the date of the publication of the result and as such this application should have been filed by the end of February 2013. The petitioner filed the application in the month of February under the Right to Information Act for an inspection of the answer scripts of the two papers. This was provided to him in the month of April 2013 and even thereafter the petitioner had not approached the University with a belated application for review of the answer script and he had, in fact filed the present writ petition in the month of June 18, 2013 for a direction upon the University to review answer script. This is all the more so because of the petitioner before moving the Court had not approached the University with the payer in time.
Mr. Chakaraborty, the learned advocate for the petitioner explained the inconveniences faced by the University after direction on such belated application is passed because the candidate has approached this Court belatedly and after certain inordinately long period. I quite appreciate that every academic institution 3 or for that matter every institution has its own time schedule and right to follow the same. Any such direction is likely to disrupt the same abruptly.
There is no merit in the writ petition. The same is dismissed. This order will not prevent the writ petitioner from taking any appropriate steps before any other forum if he likes in accordance with law.
(SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI, J)