Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Sri Ranojoy Chatterjee vs The University Of Calcutta & Ors on 13 March, 2013
Author: Prasenjit Mandal
Bench: Prasenjit Mandal
Form No.J(2) IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
APPELLATE SIDE
W.P. No.14123 (W) of 2012
With
W.P. No.14124 (W) of 2012
With
W.P. No.14125 (W) of 2012
Present :
The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Prasenjit Mandal
Sri Ranojoy Chatterjee.
Versus
The University of Calcutta & ors.
For the petitioner: Mr. Satadal Chatterjee,
Mr. Anadi Banerjee.
For the University: Ms. Sampa Sarkar.
Heard On: 06.02.2013 & 01.03.2013.
Judgement On: March 13, 2013.
Prasenjit Mandal, J.: These three applications are disposed of by
this common judgment and order as they involve the common question
of fact and law.
For convenience, the W.P. No.14123(W) of 2012 is taken up for
hearing.
W.P. No.14123(W) of 2012:-
The question involved in the matter relates to evaluation of
answer scripts of the petitioner at the B.Sc. Part-I (Three Year
Honours) Examination, 2011 under the 2009 Regulations (1+1+1
system) in the Honours subject of Statistics.
The petitioner appeared at the said examination in the year
2011 under the respondent university. The petitioner got 50 marks
total in the Honours subject and his contention is that if 3 marks were awarded to him more, he would have been declared as passed in Honours Course. On the prayer of the petitioner, the copy of the answer scripts was handed over to him. Then, on consultation with his Professors as well as the Head of the Department of his College, he was convinced that there had not been proper evaluation of answers of the petitioner and so, there was a scope for improvement of marks in the Honours subject. Accordingly, the application has been preferred.
The respondent university has contended that the evaluation of answer scripts had been done properly by experts. The petitioner having failed to take the opportunity of re- examination, there is no scope to entertain the writ petition now.
Having heard the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I find that the petitioner appeared in the aforesaid examination from the Surendranath College under the respondent university and he secured only 50 marks out of Full Marks of 150 whereas the qualifying marks for the said Honours paper are 53.
While submitting the contention of scope for enhancement of marks, Mr. Satadal Chatterjee, learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, has stated that the respondent university did not provide for any model answers in respect of the relevant subject. His client took model answers from the internet and on the basis of that, his contention is that his client has answered correctly and so, there is a scope to re-evaluate or re-examine the answers by another expert in the subject at an early date.
Mr. Chatterjee has referred to the decision reported in AIR 2008 NOC 711 and thus, he has contended that the Court may grant the prayer for revaluation of the answer script in such a situation.
With due respect to Mr. Chatterjee, I am of the view that since the said decision has been published in the form of 'NOC', it does not lay down any fact or the matter in dispute or the reasons for conclusion. I am of the view that the said decision will not be helpful Mr. Chatterjee's client at all.
On the other hand, Ms. Sampa Sarkar, learned Advocate appearing for the respondent university, has contended that so far as the matter of re-examination of the B.A., B.Sc. & B.Com. Examination of 1+1+1 system is concerned, as per Rules of the University, the candidate seeking re-examination of his answer script may apply for the purpose of re-examination of his answer scripts ordinarily within 15 working days of the University from the date of the publication of result subject to the provisions as laid down under the Rules of the University. She has furnished a copy of the said Rules.
It appears from the said Rules that re-examination is permissible in respect of theoretical papers only and a candidate may seek re-examination of not more than two papers provided the student secures at least 35% of the total marks in the remaining papers/portion of papers of the Honours subject.
Ms. Sarkar has referred to the decision of Board of Secondary Education v. Pravas Ranjan Panda & anr. reported in (2004)13 SCC 383 and thus, she has submitted that the order of the High Court relating to evaluation of answer script of all examinees securing 90% marks or above in the absence of Rules providing therefor held unsustainable in law and must be set aside. Though, this matter relates to Secondary Education matter, I am of the view that principle of revaluation is to be governed by the Rules of the respondent university. I have described above the Rules of the University relating to re-examination.
Having due regard to the submission of the learned Advocates of both the sides and on perusal of the materials on record, I am of the view that the petitioner did not take recourse for re- examination of the answer script by following the Rules of the respondent university. He did not file any application for re- examination within the date as indicated in the Rules of the respondent university and I find that he did not even get the qualifying marks at least 35% of the total marks in the remaining papers. Possibly, the petitioner did not pray for re-examination as he failed to secure the minimum marks required for the re- examination of the Honours subject.
So far as comparison of the answer script with the model answer provided by the internet, I am of the view that so far as the answers available from the internet, there is no authenticity or proof that the said answer is correct. Accordingly, the question of comparison with the model answer available from the internet does not and cannot arise.
The petitioner got the answer script under the provisions of the R.T.I. Act, 2005 and he may take it as guidance or next recourse for the next examination or for any other purpose.
Anyway, the re-examination is the only mode under the Rules of the respondent university for revaluation of the answer script and that too under certain terms and conditions as indicated above. Since, the petitioner did not comply with such terms and conditions for revaluation, the reliefs as prayed for in the writ petition, in my view, cannot be entertained.
Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merits and is, therefore, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs.
W.P. No.14124 of 2012:-
On the selfsame reasoning in W.P. No.14123 of 2012, this application is also held bereft of merits and is, therefore, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs. W.P. No.14125 of 2012:-
On the selfsame reasoning in W.P. No.14123 of 2012, this application is also held bereft of merits and is, therefore, dismissed.
There will be no order as to costs. Urgent xerox certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the learned Advocates for the parties on their usual undertaking.
(Prasenjit Mandal, J.)