Calcutta High Court (Appellete Side)
Akshay Gupta vs Jadavpur University & Ors on 14 March, 2012
Author: Tapen Sen
Bench: Tapen Sen
1 /3/2012 J. 50.
WP 1891(W) of 2012 Akshay Gupta
-Vs-
Jadavpur University & Ors.
Mr. Kishore Datta, Mr. Ambar Banerjee, Ms. Sumita Shaw.
........for the Petitioner.
Mr. Sovanlal Hazra, Mr. Debabrata Roy, ....... for the Jadavpur University.
Ms. Shampa Sarkar, ........for the University of Calcutta.
In this Writ Petition pursuant to the Order passed by this Court on 17.2.2012, Mrs. Manjusha Majumdar, Professor of Pure Mathematics of the Calcutta University has appeared. Upon being asked as to whether the questions have been answered correctly by the Petitioner or not, she has stated that the Petitioner has not at all answered the questions correctly. Apart from the aforesaid, Mr. Sovanlal Hazra, learned Counsel appearing for the Jadavpur University has produced a letter sent to the Petitioner and which was received by him on 21.11.2011 itself rejecting the representation on the ground that even after a thorough check of his answer scripts by Professor S. Chakraborty in the Department of Mathematics, no change was found in the allotment of marks. The said letter is taken on record.
In spite of such submissions, Mr. Kishore Datta, learned Counsel appearing for the Petitioner attempted to submit that answers have not been correctly examined. This Court, being a Court under Article 226, after having heard an expert in the field from the Calcutta University and after having read the letter dated 21.11.2011 will not confer itself into the Office of the University for purposes of re-scrutiny of papers which clearly fall outside the domain of judicial review.
2For the reasons stated above, no relief can be granted to the Petitioner. The Writ Petition is Dismissed.
While concluding, this Court would like to put on record its appreciation to the stand taken by Mrs. Majumdar who has very frankly refused to take any remuneration saying that it is her duty to assist the Court. Her submissions and her statements, therefore, are highly appreciated.
After the aforementioned Order was passed, learned Counsel for the Petitioner submitted that the University may consider the desirability of allowing the Petitioner to take a retest instead of compelling him to join a lower class. This prayer is not in the Writ Petition and moreover, there is no scope to pass such an Order save and except to only observe that if the Rule so permits, then the Petitioner will be at liberty to approach the Authorities of the University themselves who will be free to take a decision in accordance with law.
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.
(Tapen Sen, J.)