Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Arijit Pal vs State Of West Bengal & Ors on 1 December, 2011
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
01/12/2011
ARDR
WP 20516 (W) of 2011
Arijit Pal
Vs.
State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Soumen kumar Dutta,
...... for the Petitioner.
Ms. Nandini Mitra,
Mr. Sanjay Saha,
...for the University.
Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay,
Mrs. Basabi Raichowdhury,
.... for the Respondent no.4.
Mr. Subrata Talukdar, Mrs. Sucharita Halder (Chatterjee), ...for the State.
Heard the parties.
In this Writ Petition, the Petitioner has prayed for an Order commanding upon the Respondents to register his name so that he can appear in the 1st Semester Examinations of B. Tech Computer Sciences, which is scheduled to be held from tomorrow (02/12/2011). He has also prayed for an Order commanding upon the University to take all steps so that he can sit in the Examinations.
According to Mr. Soumen Kumar Dutta, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner, and with reference to page 28 of the Writ Petition, the Petitioner appeared in the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examinations for Engineering and his rank under the General Category was placed at 23187. Thereafter a letter for Counselling was sent to him in which and as per their own Rules, he was directed to produce the original Mark-sheets, which he did and finally, by Annexure P-5 at page 36, he was allotted the Bengal Institute of Technology and Management (Camellia) for pursuing Computer Sciences and Engineering.
Learned Counsel submits that now when the Examinations are going to begin, he has been told, by a letter dated 23/9/2011 (Annexure P-8 at page 42), that he has been denied online registration. It is on the basis of the aforementioned grievances that the Petitioner has come to this Court with the prayers referred to above.
The Petitioner has stated in paragraph 10 that upon enquiry from the college authorities, he has been told that since he obtained 44 per cent marks in Physics, Chemistry and Mathematics at the Higher Secondary level, the University has therefore, denied the facility of Registration.
Upon being asked, Ms. Nandini Mitra has submitted that in order to be registered, the minimum eligibility criteria that a candidate must have is 45 per cent marks in the said subjects at the Higher Secondary level. Ms. Mitra has submitted that thus, the Petitioner has himself admitted that he is not eligible and therefore, no relief can be granted to him.
Mr. Subrata Mukhopadhyay, learned Counsel appearing for the Central Selection Committee, has stated that though, now the Central Selection Committee has merged with the West Bengal Joint Entrance Examination Board, the basic facts cannot be ignored and that is that although Annexure P-5 at page 36, shows that the Petitioner was given the rank of 23187 and although he was allotted the Bengal Institute of Technology and Management (Camellia) to pursue Computer Sciences and Engineering, the same was subject to verification of all documents at the time of admission.
Ms. Mitra, learned Counsel for the University produced, for the perusal of this Court, the 'Corrigendum' to the 'Eligibility Criteria' and for 'Admission' to Degree Courses in Engineering/Technology, she has stated, with reference thereto, that the minimum percentage of marks has now been reduced to 45 per cent in place of 50 per cent. The said Corrigendum is taken on record.
Considering the said reduction from 50 per cent to 45 per cent, this Court notices that the Petitioner had actually obtained 43.33 per cent marks, as would be evident upon calculation of the marks in Chemistry, Physics and Mathematics (Annexure P-
1). In other words, there is a shortfall of 1.27 per cent marks than the requisite 45 per cent marks and therefore, unless the Vice-Chancellor of the University, in his wisdom, both in the capacity as the Head of the Institution as well as in the capacity as parens patriae, gives the Petitioner the benefit of 1.27 grace marks, this Court, at this stage, therefore, is not in a position to interfere on account of the aforementioned prevalent Rules/Corrigendum.
Consequently, the Writ Petition is disposed of by giving liberty to the Petitioner to approach the Vice-Chancellor by filing an appropriate representation which will be considered and disposed of after considering the observations made herein within a period of 10 (ten) days from the date of receipt of a copy of this Order and if the Vice-Chancellor is pleased to confer the benefit of grace marks to the Petitioner then appropriate steps will be taken by the University so that the Petitioner's career is not jeopardised.
This Order however, will not create any precedent for other unsuccessful candidates. This Order has been passed in the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case considering that the Petitioner failed by only 1.27 marks.
Since no Affidavits have been called for in this Writ Petition, all allegations, if any, contained in the Writ Petition, will be deemed to not have been accepted by any of the Respondents.
Parties are given liberty to communicate the gist of the Order.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
If urgent certified copy of this Order, duly photocopied, is applied for by the parties, the same should be given expeditiously.
(Tapen Sen, J.)