Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

In addition thereto on approach being made to Sri Sanatan Das. Assistant Professor in Mathematics, Department of Mathematics, University of Gourbanga, by the petitioner to find out whether the writ petitioner answered correctly to Question No.29 it was opined by Sri Sanatan Das by letter dated 4.7.2012 that the writ petitioner offered correct answer to the said Question No. 29 but the authority of the West Bengal Central School Service Commission by letters dated 22.5.2012 and 23.5.2012, refused to re-evaluate the answer script of Mathematics of the petitioner.

Learned counsel for the respondent in FMA No.407 of 2015 submitted that the refusal on the part of the concerned authority of West Bengal School Service Commission to re- evaluate the answer script would cause injustice to him for no fault on his part and in spite of being entitled to receive marks on answer to question no.29. Our attention has been drawn to the answer to question no.29 of the petitioner/respondent at Page 66 of the paper book with a request to compare the answer to the question no.29 at page 90 of paper book of a successful candidate. Admittedly, the respondent/ petitioner is unsuccessful in the competitive examination. It is pointed out that the answer to question no.29 of Mathematics Paper-I Hons./PG of the petitioner Tanuj Paul in comparison with answer to question no.29 of the said Mathematics Paper-I relating to a candidate who is the last selected candidate is the same and that the answer of the writ petitioner/respondent is correct as per evaluation made by Sanatan Das Assistant Professor in mathematics (Department of mathematics university of Gourbanga) Malda, certifying that the answer to question no.29 is mathematically correct. It is pointed out that though the writ petitioner attempted the question no.29 but he scored 'zero'. It appears to us that though the mathematically the petitioner may be correct in arriving at the required missing term being 18 but the steps are different.