Gauhati High Court
Pritisha Borah vs The State Of Assam To Be Rep. By The ... on 30 October, 2019
Author: Ajai Lamba
Bench: Ajai Lamba, Achintya Malla Bujor Barua
Page No.# 1/5
GAHC010138202019
THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT
(HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
Case No. : WA 286/2019
1:PRITISHA BORAH
D/O- LATE NANDESWAR BORAH, PERMANENT R/O- CHOLADHAR, JONAKI
NAGAR, P.S. AND DIST.- JORHAT, ASSAM, PIN- 785001. OFFICIAL ADDRESS
FOR CORRESPONDENCE- C/O- MRS. NIRMALI BORAH, DISTRICT
AGRICULTURE OFFICE, K.K. PATH, P.O. AND P.S. JORHAT, DIST.- JORHAT,
ASSAM, PIN- 785001.
VERSUS
1:THE STATE OF ASSAM TO BE REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER AND
SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, HIGHER EDUCATION
DEPARTMENT, DISPUR, GUWAHATI- 781006.
2:THE DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY ASSAM REP. BY THE REGISTRAR
DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY ASSAM PIN- 786004.
3:THE CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS
DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY ASSAM PIN- 786004.
4:THE PUBLIC INFORMATION OFFICER (EXAM)
DIBRUGARH UNIVERSITY ASSAM PIN- 786004
Advocate for the Petitioner : MS. T SOM
Advocate for the Respondent : GA, ASSAM
-BEFORE-
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. AJAI LAMBA
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ACHINTYA MALLA BUJOR BARUA
ORDER
Date : 30-10-2019 (Ajai Lamba, C.J.) Pritisha Borah has preferred this writ appeal/intra-Court appeal in challenge to order dated 15.05.2019 rendered by learned Single Judge/Writ Court while dealing with Page No.# 2/5 WP(C) No.2548/2019 (Pritisha Borah -Vs- State of Assam & Ors.).
2. The controversy that arises is in regard to the marks given to the petitioner for B.A. 5th Semester Economics Paper, 2016 Examination. The grievance of the appellant/writ petitioner was that her economics paper had not been correctly evaluated.
3. Following portion from the impugned order would be relevant to be considered by this Court for adjudication:-
"It is further submitted by Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel for the respondent University that on 07.06.2017, petitioner submitted an application to re-evaluate her answer script as she was not satisfied with the allotment of marks in her answer to the Question No. 5(a) of said 5th Semester Economic Paper-501 and accordingly, the examination branch of the respondent University re- evaluated her said answer script through an independent examiner who submitted the mark foil alongwith the answer script.
Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel submits that during such re-evaluation of her said answer script, it was found from the mark foil that the said examiner allotted 01 marks out of 03 marks for her answer to the 2nd part of question No. 5(a) and the public information officer of the respondent university by No. DU/RG/PIO/2017/1396 dated 30.08.2017 informed the petitioner about the changed of marks from 29 to 30 marks in her 5th Semester Economic Paper-501, 2016 examination.
It is also placed before the Court by Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel that question No. 5(a)of said 5th Semester Economic Paper-501 question paper had three parts consisting of 2+3+6=11marks and during the first and original evaluation of her said answer script, the examiner allotted 2marks to the petitioner out of total of 2 marks in the 1st part of her answer to the Question No. 5(a)and 4 marks out of 6 marks in her answer to the 3rd part of said question No. 5(a). However, the 2nd part of her answer to the Question No. 5(a) remained unevaluated during the regular evaluation and the subsequent examiner while re- evaluating her said answer script allotted 01 mark out of 03 marks in her answer to the 2nd part of said question No. 5(a).
As such, the petitioner who earlier secured 29 marks, after such re-
Page No.# 3/5 evaluation of her answer script, she secured 30 marks, but even then she failed to pass in her 5th Semester Economic Paper-501, 2016 examination as she did not get the total of 32 marks in the said paper.
Mr. Das, learned Senior counsel also submitted that the petitioner exhausted all her eligible chances and the remedies prescribed by the respondent university and that if she wants to carry on her further study, she has to take fresh admission in the 1st Semester of B.A. Examination. The respondents University placed the copy of the RTI application dated 20.02.2017 seeking inspection of her answer script of her 5 th Semester Economic Paper-501, 2016 examination, the mark-sheet of the petitioner issued on 14.02.2017, the answer script of said Economics paper for which the examination was held on 21.11.2016 as well as the marks that was allotted to the petitioner after re-evaluation of her said answer script.
From the perusal of the answer script placed before the Court, it is seen that to her answer to the Question No. 5(a), the petitioner was allotted only 2+4=6 out of 11 marks, without allotting any marks towards her 2nd part of said Question No. 5(a), though she had answered it. It is also seen that later on re- evaluation of her said answer script, she was allotted 01 mark for her answer to the2nd part of said Question No. 5(a) and altogether she obtained 30 marks in her said 5th Semester Economic Paper-501, 2016 examination.
In view of the above, this Court did not find any illegality and infirmity with the finding on the part of the respondent Dibrugarh University.
Accordingly, this writ petition, being devoid of merit, stands dismissed. The copy of the relevant documents placed before the Court by the respondent University be kept as a part of the record."
(Emphasized by us)
4. Above extracted portion of the impugned order indicates that re-evaluation of the paper of the appellant/writ petitioner was done. One question was found to have been left unmarked. Marks were awarded for the said question. Despite giving credit for that particular question, appellant/writ petitioner could obtain only 30 marks in B.A. 5 th Semester Economics Paper, 2016 Examination. The petitioner still falls short by 2 marks, 32 being the passing marks.
Page No.# 4/5
5. Contention of the learned counsel for the appellant/writ petitioner is that although in the impugned order it has been mentioned that the answer script had been placed before the Court and had been perused by the Court, however, in fact only instructions were taken. In such circumstances, the appellate Court cannot consider that in fact the record had been placed before the Writ Court for its consideration or that the answer script had been seen by the learned Single Judge.
6. We have gone through the grounds of appeal. No such specific ground has been taken by the appellant that the record/answer script had not been produced before the Writ Court for its perusal.
7. Bare perusal of the impugned order rendered by the Writ Court indicates that not only the answer script was produced and considered by the learned Single Judge, but it has also been recorded that copy of the relevant documents placed before the Court by the respondent University be kept as a part of the record.
We have summoned the record. Indeed, the answer script of the petitioner is available on the record of the Court.
8. We record our annoyance and displeasure against the conduct of the counsel for the appellant who in the course of arguments has stated that only instructions were taken and record was not produced for perusal of the Court. The said contention has been made in Court, without any such ground having been taken in the writ appeal. Likewise, the counsel has not filed her affidavit in regard to the fact asserted in the course of arguments.
Per contra, we find the statement given by the counsel to be false, in so much as the answer script is available and very much part of the Court record. Although the statement made by the counsel for the appellant appears to be contemptuous, however, we are not initiating any action against the counsel under the Contempt of Courts Act, 1971.
It is apparent that a statement has been made by the learned counsel at the Bar without responsibility, and without verifying the facts from the record of the Court.
9. Be that as it may, we find no infirmity in the impugned order. Re-evaluation of the paper of the appellant/writ petitioner has been done. Credit for the unmarked question has already been given. The learned Single Judge has taken a possible view, which is not required to be interfered with in intra-Court appellate jurisdiction.
Page No.# 5/5
10. The writ appeal is dismissed.
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Comparing Assistant