Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akshay Gupta vs Jadavpur University & Ors on 18 November, 2011
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
1
18/11/2011
ARDR
WP 18834 (W) of 2011
Akshay Gupta
Vs.
Jadavpur University & Ors.
Mr. Kishore Dutta,
Mr. Ambar Banerjee,
Mrs. Sumita Shaw, ....for the Petitioner.
Mr. S.L. Hazra,
Mr. Debabrata Roy, ....for the University.
Mr. Saikat Chatterjee, ...for the State.
Mr. Amal Kr. Saha, ...for the U.O.I.
In this case, the Petitioner has prayed for an Order for the
issuance of a Writ of Mandamus directing the authorities of the
Jadavpur University to dispose of the application dated 24/10/2011,
as contained in Annexure P-7, whereby and whereunder he had
prayed for photocopies of the answer scripts of the two class tests of
Mathematics - IIIS of the 2nd Semester, 1st year Supplementary and
Re-Supplementary Examinations.
Though, this Court is consistent in its views that production of
answer scripts, at the instance of unsuccessful candidates who come
to this Court with such prayers, based on entirely their self-estimation
that they may have done better or that they had performed well
should not be allowed, but, in this case, the distinction is that the
Petitioner has already invoked his rights under the Right to
Information Act.
In a recent Judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court passed in
the case of Central Board of Secondary Eduction & Anr. vs.
Aditya Bandopadhyay & Ors. delivered in Civil Appeal no. 6454 of
2011 arising out of S.L.P. (C) no. 7526 of 2009 (a photocopy whereof
was produced in Court by Mr. S.L. Hazra, learned Counsel for the
University), it has been held in paragraph 18 thereof that unless the
examining body is able to demonstrate that the answer books fall
under the exempted category of information described in Clause (e) of
2
Section 8(1) of the R.T.I. Act, they will be bound to provide access to
an examinee to inspect and take copies of his evaluated answer
books, even if such inspection or taking copies is barred under
the rules/bye-laws of the examining body governing the
examinations.
The photocopy of the aforementioned Judgment, which
was produced in Court, is taken on record.
As a consequence of the aforementioned Judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court, the stand of the Respondents, as has been
submitted in Court, that they are willing only to show the answer scripts to the Petitioner, cannot be held to be justified.
The Judgment of the Supreme Court is the law of the land and if their Lordships have held that examinees are entitled to photocopies also, then, the University cannot take a stand which frustrates the said law of the land.
Under the circumstances, this Writ Petition is allowed and the University is directed to supply photocopies of the aforementioned answer scripts to the Petitioner.
Since the next 5th Semester Examinations is scheduled to commence on and from the 22nd of November, 2011, the University must ensure that compliance of this Order be made by 5 pm. of tomorrow (i.e. by 5 pm. of 19/11/2011) itself so that no prejudice is caused to the Petitioner.
In the event, if the Petitioner is found to be eligible, the University shall render all cooperation so that his career is not prejudiced and all formalities are completed by the 21st of November, 2011 thereby enabling him to appear in the 5th Semester Examinations.
Since Affidavits have not been called for in view of the urgency of the situation and since the case is being disposed of at this stage itself in the manner indicated above, none of the allegations, if any made, would be deemed to have been accepted by any of the Respondents.
3
The other point raised by the Petitioner, in view of the peculiar facts and circumstances prevailing in this case, were not pressed by the Petitioner because he prayed leave that he may be allowed to raise those points in any other appropriate case. Leave granted.
With the aforesaid observations and directions, the Writ Petition stands disposed of.
Subject to an application for certified copy being made and proof in support thereof being produced, let a plain photocopy of this Order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the parties.
After the aforementioned Order was passed, Mr. S.L. Hazra, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the University, prays for a Plain photostat Copy of this Order.
The office shall handover a plaint photostat copy of this Order to Mr. S.L. Hazra.
Subject to an application for certified copy being made and proof in support thereof being produced, let a plain photocopy of this Order, duly countersigned by the Assistant Registrar (Court), be handed over to the Petitioner.
(Tapen Sen, J.)