MOLIKA BANERJI Vs. UNIVERSITY OF ALLAHABAD

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -By way of this petition, the petitioner has sought the relief of a writ of mandamus commanding the respondents to decide her representation dated 15.9.2005 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) attended with further prayer to produce copy of Answer scripts of the petitioner in M.B.A. Final 4th Semester of Business Taxation and Tax Planning followed by the prayer to quash the result declared by opposite party No. 1 in the case of petitioner in the M.B.A. Final II Semester Examination, 2005 vide mark-sheet dated 9.9.2005 in the paper Business Taxation and Tax Planning as being illegal and unsustainable in law and also seeking further relief of declaring the petitioner as having passed M.B.A. Final Examination in the Paper Business Taxation and Tax Planning with such marks as may be deemed just and appropriate and after re-examination by any competent authority, pass suitable orders.

(2.) THE factual matrix runs as under. THE petitioner namely Mollika Banerjee after completing her High School, Intermediate and Graduation with excellence joined vocational course in M.B.A. in University of Allahabad in the year 2003-04. It would appear from the record that she secured 317 marks out of 500 in M.B.A. 1st Semester, 749 out of 1100 in the 2nd Semester examination and in the final year, she secured 304 marks out of 500. THE precise split up of the marks awarded in the final year is to the effect that she was awarded 63 marks in Business Policy, 57% in Quantitative Techniques, 73% marks in Investment and Project Management, 75% marks in Financial Markets and Institutions and 63% marks in viva voce. In the year in question, she was awarded 22 marks in written paper in Business Taxation and Tax Planning out of 75 marks and 10 marks out of 25 in class participation and written assignments. According to further allegations in the writ petition, the answer script of Business Taxation and Tax Planning carrying 25 marks was vetted by Sri Ajai Kumar Singhal, arrayed as opposite party No. 5, which carried 75 marks. It is further alleged that in class test, she was awarded only 10 marks out of 25 marks on the count of participation and written assignments and consequently she was declared failed attended with further submission that she has throughout been a brilliant and meritorious student having romped home in all subsequent examination with marked excellence. It is further alleged that since Sri Ajai Kumar Singhal, opposite party No. 5 was also indulging in private coaching, he covertly pandered to those students who joined his coaching classes. It is further alleged that Dr. P. C. Verma who earlier held the charge of Head of the Department, had debarred the opposite party No. 5 from examination work pursuant to a complaint made by her maternal uncle namely Dr. Ramendra Rai and as a result he nursed animus against the petitioner and actuated by a malice, he mala fide marked her down by awarding only 10 marks out of 25 marks although all other students in the class were awarded marks between 19 to 23. THE allegations further are that some of the students who were not in attendance in class test on the date of test, were awarded 20 to 23 marks out of 25 marks. Subsequently, it is stated that the matter was represented to Vice Chancellor by the petitioner and her local guardian and acting on her representation, the Vice Chancellor appointed Dr. Aseem Mukherjee and Dr. K. G. Srivastava, Dean of Faculties of Arts who vetted the entire matter including copies of the petitioner and in the ultimate analysis, opined that injustice has been done to her. It is further stated that during pendency of the representation new Act came into being. Besides the above, various other allegations have been ventilated in the representation annexed to the writ petition in order to make out a case for acting mala fide in her case.

(3.) THE learned counsel also drew attention to affidavit filed by Prof. Raj Shekhar (since retired) and Sri Umesh Narain Sharma, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of Head of the Department urged that the marks were rightly given by opposite party No. 5 and there is no error of law apparent on the face of record in either scrutinizing answer scripts or in awarding marks to the petitioner.