Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

540W/2013 on 2 May, 2013

Author: Prasenjit Mandal

Bench: Prasenjit Mandal

                                                   1

05.13
7 ab
                                         W.P. 540(W) of 2013


        Mr. Indranath Mitra,
                                     ... for the petitioner

        Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta,
        Mr. Soumya Majumder,
                   ... for the respondent Nos. 1 to 3

Mr. Bellal Shaikh, ... for the State Dr. S. K. Patra, ... for the Calcutta University Heard the learned advocates of the respective parties.

This writ petition is at the instance of a student belonging to Schedule Tribe Community of the M. Sc. Course and is filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents, particularly the Controller of Examinations, Presidency University to re-examine and/or review the answer scripts of the petitioner and other consequential reliefs.

The short fact is that the petitioner appeared in the M. Sc. Part I & II Examination for the year 2011-12. After getting the marks-sheets, the petitioner was not satisfied with the marks awarded to him. Accordingly, he prayed for copies of the answer scripts under the provisions of the Right to Information Act, 2005 and the copies were supplied to him. After getting the copies, he preferred this writ petition for re-examination or review of the marks awarded to him in the said examination.

Upon hearing the learned advocates of the respective parties and on going through the materials on record, I find that if a student has any grievance against the marks awarded to him by the concerned university, the appropriate relief is to pray for review of the answer scripts and in that case, the answer scripts are reviewed by an expert body. In the instant case, the petitioner did not adopt such a recourse.

2

It may be noted herein that the petitioner appeared in the M. Sc. Part I Examination from the University of Calcutta in the year 2011 that is more than one year after and then he appeared in the M.Sc. Part II Examination in the said subject in the year 2012. He got about 48.4% marks in the said M.Sc. Examination.

Upon consideration of the submission of the petitioner in the writ petition, particularly at page 6, I find that the petitioner is a mediocre student. In the Madhyamik Pariksha, he passed in the 2nd Division in the year 2001. He passed Higher Secondary Examination in 2nd Division in 2004 and then only in 2010, he passed B. Sc. (Hons) in Microbiology having 46% marks and then, he appeared in the M. Sc. Part I & II Examination in the year 2011-12 as recorded above. So, the petitioner is no doubt a mediocre student. Any way, since the petitioner did not avail himself of the opportunity of review, as permitted under the rules of the respondent university, I am of the view that his prayer for re-examination or review cannot be allowed.

The learned advocate appearing for the petitioner has contended that on perusal of the answer scripts appearing from page 34 and onwards, it appears that no marks had been noted against the answers in respect of the particular question that he had answered. In this respect, Mr. Kar has furnished one copy of the instruction supplied to the examiners, which indicates in serial No. 1 that no marks should be entered on the body of the answer scripts or on its cover page. This being the position, no marks have been incorporated either against each question or in its cover page.

This being the position, I am of the view that it cannot be stated that the answer scripts had not been properly examined by the examiner. Rather, on perusal of the answer scripts, it appears that the concerned examiner had put note of interrogation, even note of double interrogation and tick marks etc., to indicate in appropriate cases as to the correctness of the answers and such an indication clearly shows that the examiner had examined the answer papers properly. This being the position, I am of the view that there is no scope to entertain this writ petition.

Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

There shall be no order as to costs.

3

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties at an early date.

(Prasenjit Mandal, J)