Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
19204W/2013 on 18 November, 2013
Author: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
Bench: Sambuddha Chakrabarti
1 November, 18 2013.
r.c.
W.P. 19204 (W) OF 2013 Mr. Sibaji Kumar Das...for Petitioner Mr. Amitabha Choudhury ...for University Mr. Amitesh Banerjee Ms.Mun Mun Tewari...for State Let the affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the record.
Mr. Banerjee, the learned advocate appearing for the State of West Bengal is present.
Heard the learned advocate for the petitioner. The petitioner appeared at the B.A. Part‐III examination in 2011 with Honours in geography. After publication of the results, the petitioner wanted an inspection of the practical papers which was allowed to her. Thereafter the petitioner wanted a review of the practical papers and she was informed that as per the University Rules the papers would not be reviewed but she might inspect her answer scripts physically under the Right to Information Act 2005. This was allowed to her in March 13, 2012. Not being satisfied with the evaluation of the answers given by her she wanted the practical papers to be examined by two 2 independent examiners. She made application for reevaluation of the practical papers by an independent examiner. Her grievance is that the Controller of University has not accepted this application and therefore she had to write to the Chancellor of the University as well as to the West Bengal Higher Education Department.
It appears that on behalf of the Higher Education Department the member Secretary had written to the Controller of Examination, University of Kolkata requesting him to arrange to get the practical answer script reviewed by an expert of the Kalyani University, preferably in front of her. Thereafter she herself had written a letter to the Controller of Examination but this letter has not been replied to as yet. The learned advocate for the petitioner could not satisfy about the Rules of the University of Kalyani permitting such reexamination of the practical papers by an independent examiner after once examined. The petitioner has not challenged the stand taken by the Controller of Examination that there is no provision in the University regulations that review of the practical paper is not permitted.
Mr. Choudhury, the learned advocate appearing for the University informs that there is no 3 Rule permitting a review or reexamination of a practical paper by an independent examiner.
In such view of it and in the absence of any such Rules, the petitioner has no right to invoke the writ jurisdiction. Therefore, the writ petition has no merit. The writ petition is dismissed.
(SAMBUDDHA CHAKRABARTI‐J)