RABINDRA NATH GHOSAL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The main contention of the writ petitioner is for direction upon the University of Calcutta to publish forthwith his complete results with regard to his performance at the M.A. Examination in Islamic History and Culture for the year 1983 along with his mark-sheet. This writ application was moved on 14th May, 1991 when the Hon'ble High Cot after hearing the same adjourned the matter for two weeks after the summer vacation. Immediately thereafter the petitioner's result was published on.12th July, 1991 declaring him unsuccessful in the Examination.

(2.) The short case of the writ petitioner, Mr. Rabindra Nath Ghosal, is that he appeared in the M.A. Examination, 1983 in Islamic History and Culture of the Calcutta University which was held in November 1994. His Roll No. was Cal(N) IHC 274 and Registration No.35356 of 1970-71. He appeared as a private candidate. The result of this Examination was announced on 6th June, 1985 and the petitioner's result remained incomplete. He made repeated enquiries at the Enquiry Counter of the University and wrote to the Controller of Examination by registered post on 10th December, 1990 and also to the Vice-Chancellor on 14th February, 1991. The case of the petitioner is that the non-publication of his result for more than six years is unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious and such inordinate long delay offends all canons of justice, natural or otherwise.

(3.) The University of Calcutta filed an Affidavit-in-Opposition refuting the allegations of the petitioner by beating the drum that education is not a fundamental right and the petitioner cannot move any writ application as there is no infringement or breach of any legal right. The respondents had acted in accordance with relevant Rules and have duly discharged their duties enjoyed upon them and as such the petitioner cannot have any grievance or dissatisfaction. It is stated in the Affidavit that the High Court cannot interfere in the domestic or internal administration of the University unless and until there is any element of mala fide or bias. It is very boldly but shamelessly admitted in paragraph 6(iv) of the Opposition that the petitioner prayed for a direction for publishing the result of his Examination held in 1983 and the result was published and the mark-sheet was sent to him on 12th July, 1991 under registered cover and as such the writ petition has become infructuous. It is also admitted that the result of the Examination of 1983 was held in 1984 and the result was declared in 1985 and the petitioner's result was announced and/or declared in 1991. The Affidavit affirmed by the Controller of Examinations states that as the result of the petitioner remained incomplete because of the posting of marks of 1st Half of VIth Paper in the two copies of Tabulation Rolls differed and this discrepancy was not brought to his notice by the Tabulators, as such this went unnoticed by him till 10th December, 1990. Immediately on receiving the petitioner's application the Controller made enquiry, tried to verify the marks but the answer scripts could not. be traced out and the matter was placed before the Vice-Chancellor who suggested to accept the higher marks and both the Tabulation Rolls were made uniform and the approval was given on 6th April, 1991 by the Vice-Chancellor and the mark-sheet was sent on 12th July, 1991. In the Affidavit the Controller specifically stated on page 6 that "It is not understood why the petitioner did not approach the Result Section for obtaining such information. In any event I have every reason to believe that the petitioner knew his result by making necessary enquiry but deliberately chose to keep silent for a considerable period in order to take advantage of the situation.." The allegations in the rest of the paragraphs are denied.