Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Pritilata Roy vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 December, 2018
Author: Arindam Sinha
Bench: Arindam Sinha
1 04.12.2018[01]
Suman WP 3383 (W) of 2018
Court-4 with
CAN 7002 of 2018
Pritilata Roy
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Rajdeep Bhattacharya
Mr. Nilanjan Pal
...for the applicant /petitioner
Ms. Supriya Dubey
...for North Bengal University
Mr. Sufik Dewan
...for the State
This is an application for restoration of the writ petition dismissed for default by order dated 23rd August, 2018. Mr. Bhattacharya, learned advocate appears on behalf of applicant and submits, cause be accepted and said order recalled. Ms. Dubey, learned advocate appearing on behalf of the University, in fairness does not oppose restoration. WP 3383 (W) of 2018 is restored to file and number. The application is allowed and disposed of.
Petitioner has complained of not having been awarded marks she was entitled to in Zoology paper-III of B.Sc. Part-I (General) Examination, 2017 taken by her. An affidavit was filed on behalf of 2 the University on 23rd August, 2018, on copy served. Petitioner has filed exception to such affidavit. In the affidavit it has been stated that total marks awarded to petitioner for question no.1 is 1 ½ out of 4. Mr. Bhattacharya submits, full marks for question no.1 is 6. He draws attention to petitioner's representation dated 29th January, 2018 in which she had said regarding question no.1 for dissection, inter alia, as follows:-
"In the practical examination of zoology papers I was given a cockroach for dissection but the said cockroach was not proper as same was not fit for dissection and I immediately reported the same to the hall examiner but I was compelled to give examination with the same since alternative cockroach was not available."
He submits, this grievance of petitioner was not addressed. On given defective specimen, her dissection of it was examined as that she was not able to dissect and mount the dissected Salivary Apparatus (with tongue).
Ms. Dubey, hands up communication dated 1st December, 2018 from Internal and External Examiners to Controller of Examinations which reiterates contents of disclosure in affidavit filed but clarifying that total marks for question no.1 is 6. Disclosure in the affidavit of the University says as follows:-
3
"Firstly, Pritilata Roy, an examinee bearing Roll:0211522 No.10029 of B. Sc. Part-I (General) Examination, 2017; made her petition that she was not awarded any marks for preparation of slide with dissected organ:
As per our opinion she was not able to dissect and mount the dissected "Salivary Apparatus (with tongue)" of cockroach; therefore, she was not awarded any marks for the same and at the same time we also like to mention that for drawing (01) and labeling (01) of the diagram out of two (02), she was awarded one and half (1 ½) for the same.
Therefore, total marks awarded to her for the question no.1 is one and half (1 ½) out of four (04). Secondly, she was awarded two (02) marks for the question no.3 d; though she wrongly write the Taxa as "species" instead of "Genus" and she also did not show any reasons to place the aforesaid specimen to the respective Phylum, Sub-Phylum, Super-class and Class of the specimen; She wrongly write the Genus Characters of the specimen. Though, she awarded two (02) marks out of 3 ½ marks."
It appears petitioner was found as not able to dissect and mount the dissected that carried 2 marks but she got none. Of remaining four marks. She got one and half (1 ½). Above extract from disclosure can be read in this way. There appears to be no dispute that requirement of dissection was for mounting Salivary Apparatus (with tongue). Petitioner having known this to be 4 requirement did not mention in her representation, defect of specimen being absence of these parts in it. Allegation made was that specimen was not proper as same was not fit for dissection. Defect complained of is not apparent.
Court finds the University has taken steps for petitioner's grievance being addressed. The examiners have applied their mind. Court is not inclined to interfere with comments made regarding marks obtained by petitioner on other questions as well, in spite of Mr. Bhattacharya pressing to demonstrate as to how the answers were incorrectly evaluated.
Writ petition is dismissed.
(Arindam Sinha, J.)