Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Smt. Aditi Das vs The State Of West Bengal & Ors on 4 June, 2013
Author: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
Bench: Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari
1 4th June, 2013.
(SKB) W.P. 128 (W) Of 2007 Smt. Aditi Das Versus The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Tulsidas Maity,
Mr. Pradip Kumar Ghosh
.....for the petitioner. Dr. S.
K. Patra,
Mr. R. K. Basak,
.....the University of Calcutta.
Mr. Sahasuddin Sardar,
Mr. Murari Chakraborty......for the State.
The writ petitioner has come up against the impugned order passed by the Deputy Controller of Examinations, Calcutta University, wherein the result of re- examination of answer-scripts of paper-II was cancelled.
Mr. Maity, learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner, submits that a review application was filed and that was entertained by the University of Calcutta and re-examination of answer-scripts was allowed and in view of such re-examination, the writ petitioner got some more marks. Subsequently, the writ petitioner's result was cancelled by the impugned order dated 17th November, 2006 without giving any opportunity of hearing to the writ petitioner. Although the University is showing that this is not permitted under its regulations but the University accepted the complaint and conducted re-examination of paper-II and also published the result. According to Mr. Maity, the result should be given effect to for the benefit of the writ petitioner. He also submits that the writ petitioner has already applied before several authorities for her employment stating that she has secured more marks in part-II examination and in case it is cancelled, then she will be liable for some sort of proceedings and/or some inconvenience.
2Dr. Patra, learned Counsel appearing for the University, submits that although it was done by the University but it is not permitted by the regulations. However, the University has re-examined the paper-II of the writ petitioner and the marks were increased in view of such re-examination and that could be given effect to with a rider that "it should not be cited as a precedent".
Heard the submissions made by the Counsel appearing for the respective parties and considered the materials available on records.
It appears that the University authorities themselves accepted the application and scrutinised the paper. On such scrutiny and/or re-examination of paper-II, marks of the writ petitioner was increased and she also applied before several authorities disclosing that her marks increased.
In such circumstances, this Court feels that the impugned order of the University authorities passed by the Deputy Controller of Examinations, Calcutta University, on 17th November, 2006 is not sustainable in the eye of law.
In such circumstances, this Court directs the University to give effect of the result of that re-examination but this should not be treated as a special case. This should not be treated as a precedent in any case in future. The impugned order dated 17th November, 2006 passed by the Deputy Controller of Examinations, Calcutta University, is set aside and the writ petition is allowed. The University is also directed to issue fresh certificate on the basis of such re- examination within a period of six weeks from date of communication of this order.
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be given to the learned advocates for the parties.
(Ashoke Kumar Dasadhikari, J.)