Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

Records reveal that by an order dated 31st August, 2015 this Court directed the petitioner to appear in the supplementary examination without prejudice to his rights and contentions in the writ application. Pursuant to the said order the petitioner participated in the said examination and emerged to be successful and a mark-sheet pertaining to MD Pharmacology examination (supplementary) held on September, 2015 was issued.

Mr. Samanta submits that the petitioner made an application for review of the theoretical answer scripts and such application for review was accepted by the university authorities upon collection of review fee of Rs.1,000/-. Having accepted the review application along with the requisite fees the respondents were under an obligation to review / re-evaluate the answer scripts of the petitioner but surprisingly they conducted scrutiny of the papers and intimated that there had been an enhancement of 1 mark. Such process as adopted by the university is fallacious.

He further submits that fees were accepted for scrutiny of the petitioner's answer scripts and not for review and the tick mark given inadvertently against the serial for "review fee" did not create any right in favour of the petitioner to have the answer scripts reviewed / re-evaluated. On the basis of such inadvertence and mistake on the part of the issuing authority, the university authorities cannot be compelled to review the answer scripts of the petitioner, moreso when, there is no provision towards review of the answer scripts and no obligation is cast upon the university authorities to review the petitioner's answer scripts.