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 0, Cited by 0]

Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)

Miss Aratrika Sarkar vs University Of Calcutta & Ors on 3 August, 2015

Author: Tapabrata Chakraborty

Bench: Tapabrata Chakraborty

                              1



03.08.2015
S.L.-8(KB)


                                  W.P. 16750 (W) of 2015


                                   Miss Aratrika Sarkar
                                         versus
                                  University of Calcutta & Ors.



                             Mr. Joyak Gupta
                             Mr. Brotindro Mullick
                                                 ... For the petitioner.


                             Dr. Sutanu Kumar Patra
                             Mr. Rajiv Kumar Basak
                                               ... For the University.


                       This writ application has been preferred, inter

             alia, praying for re-examination of the petitioner's answer-

             script of Chemistry of Bachelor of Science, Part-II,

             Supplementary Examination, 2014.

                       The undisputed facts are that the petitioner

             availed admission in the Netaji Nagar College of Women,

             Kolkata to pursue the course of Bachelor of Science

             (Hons.) in Environmental Science and passed the Part-I

             Examination of 2013.      Thereafter she appeared in the

             Part-II Examination of 2014 but could not secure pass

             marks in the subject of Chemistry and in terms of the

             Examination Regulations she was allowed to appear in the
                   2


Supplementary Examination pertaining to said subject in

which she was awarded only 22 marks.

          In the midst of hearing of the instant writ

application,   this   Court   directed   Dr.   Patra,   learned

advocate appearing for the university authorities to give

inspection of the Chemistry answer-script to the petitioner

and accordingly Dr. Patra produced the original answer-

script and the petitioner took inspection of the same.

          Mr. Gupta, learned advocate appearing for the

petitioner submits that the Chemistry answer-script has

not been appropriately examined and that under the

Examination Regulations there is a provision towards re-

examination of the answer-script and accordingly he prays

for a direction upon the university authorities to re-

examine the answer-script of the Chemistry paper.

          Dr. Patra, learned advocate appearing for the

university authorities submits that no formal application

towards re-examination of the concerned paper has been

made by the petitioner.

          Under the Examination Regulations a candidate

may apply to the Controller of Examinations for re-

examination of answer-script ordinarily within fifteen

working days of the university from the date of publication
                   3


of the result. Records reveal that the last date of filing of

such application for re-examination in terms of the

Regulations was 14th July, 2015 and the writ application

was affirmed before this Court on the said date.

          Upon hearing the learned advocates appearing

for the respective parties and upon considering the

material on record, I am of the opinion that the matter

needs to be relegated to the appropriate authority for

consideration of the petitioner's prayer for re-examination

of the Chemistry paper.

          Accordingly, the petitioner is directed to make

representation for re-examination of the answer-script of

Chemistry of B.Sc. Part-II, Supplementary Examination,

2014 to the respondent no.4 within a week from date and

upon receipt of the said representation, the said respondent no.4 shall consider the same and shall pass an order, in accordance with law and shall communicate the same to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of such representation.

It is made clear that such representation of the petitioner for re-examination of the answer-script should not rejected on the ground of delay.

4

With the above observations and directions, the writ application stands disposed of.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs. Urgent Photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be handed over to the parties on compliance of necessary formalities.

(Tapabrata Chakraborty,J.)