Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Rakesh Kumar Ghatak vs The University Of Calcutta & Ors on 27 March, 2015
Author: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
Bench: Jyotirmay Bhattacharya
HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA Civil Appellate Jurisdiction Appellate Side Present:
The Hon'ble Justice Jyotirmay Bhattacharya AND The Hon'ble Justice Samapti Chatterjee M.A.T. 725 of 2014 (CAN 4556 of 2014) Rakesh Kumar Ghatak
-versus-
The University of Calcutta & Ors.
For Appellant : Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharjee, Mr. Abhijit Basu, Mr. Raju Bhttacharjee.
For the Calcutta : Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya,
University. Ms. Reshmi Ghosh.
Heard On : 27th March, 2015
Judgement On : 27th March, 2015.
Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J. This mandamus appeal is directed
against the judgment and order passed by a learned Single Judge of this Court on 4th March, 2014 in W.P. 5575(W) of 2014 at the instance of the writ petitioner/appellant.
By the impugned order, the writ petition filed by the appellant was dismissed by the learned Trial Judge as the learned Trial Judge found that the University scrutinized the paper and found no change in the result of the petitioner. His Lordship further held that since there was no Rule for re- examination of the answer script, the appellant's prayer for re-examination of his answer script cannot be allowed.
The legality of the said judgment and/or order is under challenge before us.
Let us now consider the merit of this appeal in the facts of the present case.
The petitioner appeared in B.Com. Part-II - (Three Year General) Examination, 2010 under new Regulation (1+1+1 system) under the University of Calcutta. The petitioner was an unsuccessful candidate. He could not obtain the qualifying marks in GRP-2 in Part-II examination. He was allowed to reappear in the said paper, i.e. GRP-2. He reappeared in the said paper in the supplementary examination. Still then, he could not obtain the qualifying marks.
After obtaining photostat copy of the answer script which was supplied to him by the State Public Information Officer, University of Calcutta under the Right to Information Act, the appellant found that his answer script was not properly assessed. Accordingly, he applied for re-examination of his answer script. The University concerned accepted fees for re-examination of his answer script, but ultimately instead of re-examining the answer script, the University scrutinized the said answer script and found no change in the marks which was obtained by him earlier. This is the cause of action which led the writ petitioner to file a writ petition before the Writ Court.
The learned Trial Judge dismissed the said writ petition as the learned Trial Judge found on scrutiny that the marks obtained by him remained unaltered and there was no Regulation for re-examination of the answer script.
We are informed by Mr. Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the University authority that though there is a Regulation for re- examination of the answer script, but the petitioner concerned does not qualify for applying for re-examination of his answer script as he failed to obtain at least 40% marks in the remaining papers.
We have also examined the petitioner's marksheet and we find that the petitioner failed to obtain 40% marks in the remaining papers and as such he is not eligible to apply for re-examination of his answer script. Thus, we do not find any illegality on the part of the University concerned in refusing to reassess the petitioner's answer script.
Fact remains that the relevant answer script has been scrutinised by the University on the prayer of the writ petitioner/appellant. Even on scrutiny, his marks remained unchanged. Here the parties have joined issues.
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharjee, learned advocate appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant has drawn our attention to the answer given by the State Public Information Officer, University of Calcutta vide its letter dated 28th January, 2014 appearing at page 75 of the stay application wherein it is mentioned that "the answers to question no. 4(a) & 4(c) are either wrong or incomplete and so no marks have been awarded to the two questions".
Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharjee submits that the answer which was given by the State Public Information Officer, University of Calcutta as mentioned above is absolutely vague and indefinite. According to him, if an examinee answers a question incorrectly, "0" marks may be allotted to him. Again, he submits that if an examinee gives incomplete answer to a question, then he may either get "0" marks or may get any marks appropriate to the answer given to the said question, but the Examiner cannot leave any answer unassessed.
In this regard we have perused the answer script of the writ petitioner/appellant. We have seen that no marks has been allotted to him either against his answer given to question no. 4(a) or against the answer given by him to question no. 4(c). We agree with the submission of Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharjee that the Examiner should have allotted marks which he deserved for those answers. Even "0" marks could have been also awarded to him if the answers given by the appellant to those questions are found to be wrong or incorrect.
Though apparently we find some merit in the contention of Mr. Partha Sarathi Bhattacharjee, but still then we find that no interference with the impugned order is necessary in the facts of the instant case for the following reasons :-
Admittedly the writ petitioner/appellant has not obtained qualifying marks in the said paper. He is short of 5 marks. We find that 2 marks were allotted for question no. 4(a) and 2 marks were allotted for question no. 4(c). Even assuming that the answers given by the writ petitioner/appellant to those two questions are correct and comprehensive, still then he could not have obtained more than the full marks i.e. 2+2=4 marks in those two questions. Thus he could have at best secured 4 more marks in the said paper. Even if he could have secured full marks i.e. 4 marks in those two papers, still then he was short of 1 mark than the qualifying marks. As such, in any circumstances the appellant could not have been declared as a passed candidate.
In the facts of the instant case, we feel that re-examination of the answer script of the petitioner will yield no result. Accordingly, we refuse to allow the appellant's prayer for re-examination and/or re-assessment of his said answer script.
The appeal thus stands dismissed.
Having regard to the fact that the appeal is dismissed, no further order need be passed on the interlocutory application filed in connection therewith. The said application being CAN 4556 of 2014 is also deemed to be disposed.
(Jyotirmay Bhattacharya, J.) (Samapti Chatterjee, J.) ac.