Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Kinjal Das vs The State Of West Bengal And Ors on 29 October, 2021
Author: Aniruddha Roy
Bench: Aniruddha Roy
29.10.2021
Court No.8
Item No.2
AP/ss
MAT 1150 of 2021
With
CAN 1 of 2021
Kinjal Das
Vs.
The State of West Bengal and Ors.
(Through Video Conference)
Mr. Kallol Basu
Mr. Suman Banerjee
Mr. Swapnamoy Sarkar
... ... for the petitioner
Mr. Partha Sarathi Sengupta
Mr. Soumya Majunder
Mr. Victor Chatterjee
... ... for the Presidency University
The petitioner's case is that the petitioner
originally secured 78 percent marks in Mathematics in
his ISC Examination for Class XII.
Subsequently, the petitioner participated in an
optional improvement examination and in such
assessment, the petitioner's marks were improved to 98
percent.
The petitioner sought, at the earliest after such
improvement of performance, to have himself admitted
in the respondent No.2, Presidency University. The
university refused to accommodate the petitioner in view of its own admission notice, which categorically states that data/information cannot be modified, under any 2 circumstances, after final submission of application forms.
It is submitted by learned counsel for the petitioner that it has been held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Amit Bathla and Ors. Vs. Central Board of Secondary Education and Anr. reported at (2020) 7 SCC 233, that the notification published in respect of the CBSE examinations would apply to the ISC/ICSE examination as well. It is provided, inter alia, in such notification that the marks obtained by a candidate in the optional examinations will be treated as final for those who have opted to take the examinations. Learned counsel contends that in view of such legal position, the marks obtained by the petitioner should be deemed to relate back to the date of publication of the first result, which would make the petitioner eligible to be admitted to the Presidency University (in the Mathematics Department).
Learned counsel further places reliance on S. Krishna Sradha Vs. The State of Andhra Pradesh and Ors. reported at 2019 SCC OnLine SC 1609. It was held in the said case, inter alia, that compensation is merely a secondary relief. It was further decided by the Supreme Court that if the Court finds that there is no fault attributable to the candidate, and the candidate has pursued his/her legal right expeditiously without any delay and there is fault only on behalf of the authorities and/or there is apparent breach of rules and 3 regulations as well as related principles in the process of grant of admission which would violate the right of equality and equal treatment to the competing candidates the Court, under exceptional circumstances and in the rarest of rare cases, can direct the admission in the same year by directing the educational institution concerned to increase the seats. If such relief cannot be granted, the Supreme Court also pondered upon an option as to whether the candidate at the bottom of the list should be removed and the eligible candidate would be accommodated in place of such removed candidate.
It was also held by the Supreme Court that the Court can mould the relief and direct the admission to be granted to such a candidate in the next academic year by issuing appropriate directions for increasing the number of seats as may be considered appropriate in the case, subject to the other riders as stipulated in the cited judgement.
Learned Senior Counsel appearing for the respondents contends that the specific rules of the Presidency University for admission, which is a statutory institution, provide that data/information cannot be modified, under any circumstances, after final submission of the application for admission.
As such, it would be unjust to the students who have already got admission by virtue of their merits, if the present writ petitioner is accommodated in place of any of such candidate.
4
That apart, it is submitted that this prayer, if allowed, would open a flood-gate, since several other similarly placed students might also come up with similar applications, which would exceed by far the maximum capacity of seats of the University itself.
Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties, we find that the improvement examination, in which the writ petitioner got assessed and obtained higher marks, was an optional examination. In the event a candidate does not take such examination, the original marks would remain sacrosanct.
However, since the present writ petitioner opted for such examination and improved his performance, the marks were increased subsequently from 78 percent to 98 percent.
Even if the last-obtained marks by the candidate, after the improvement assessment scheme, is taken to be final, for the purpose of admission to the Presidency University or for that matter to any educational institution, it cannot be deemed to relate back to the date of original publication of mark-sheet and/or the cut-off date for submission of admission forms.
The very expression "improved their performance", if they wish so, indicates that there is a change in the qualification and improvement in the academic accomplishment of the student in the meantime, which is a subsequent event after the original marks were obtained. Such subsequent event 5 cannot be taken into consideration to assess the validity and/or legality of an admission process which was concluded much prior to such improvement being made.
As such, in the present case, we do not find any irregularity in the process of admission undertaken by the Presidency University.
That apart, it is well-settled that, merely because of different view is possible, the appellate Court, particularly while taking up an intra-court appeal, ought to be cautious and should not substitute its own views and, for such purpose alone, set aside the order of the learned Single Judge.
In the present case, the judgement dated October 1, 2021 passed by the learned Single Judge, which has been assailed in the present appeal itself, clearly shows that the learned Single Judge took into consideration all relevant factors and sufficiently adverted to the contentions of the parties and, only upon furnishing detailed reasons, the impugned judgement and order of the learned Single Judge was passed.
Even if an alternative view were to be possible on the matters on record, it would be inappropriate to go into the merits of the materials afresh, while sitting in an intra-court appeal.
In such view of the matter, MAT 1150 of 2021 along with CAN 1 of 2021 are dismissed, without, however, any order as to costs.
6
Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all formalities.
(Sabyasachi Bhattacharyya, J.) (Aniruddha Roy, J.)