VICE CHANCELLOR Vs. BIJAY KUMAR DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Sometimes as in life so also in a court of law certain situations bubbled up for consideration which if taken care at the right point in the right perspective, can lead to practicable solution or else it may result in irretrievable consequences.

(2.) In such trajectory, we have been faced with an order under appeal where the University authorities being the Appellants have been pushed to the fore onaccount of three directions given by the learned Single Judge. We would set out the same in seriatim:

(3.) Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned Counsel for the University, has placed before us the entire judgment and order under appeal and was of the opinion that firstly the order passed by the learned Single Judge imposing cost and direction for initiation of civil proceeding cannot be made tenable. He submitted this on the strength of a Notification (page 37 of the Paper Book) whereby the University was authorized to destroy the answer scripts after retaining them for beyond a period of six months. As such, since the prayer for scrutiny having been made beyond the period of time they had no obligation to retain the scripts. Furthermore, by the same analogy the direction given in Item No. 1 (supra) cannot also be applicable against the University authorities on account of the fact that it has been a practice even before the said Notification came into existence that the authorities do not retain answer scripts of various examinations which they conducted for more than six months in their custody.