TRIPURA SANKAR CHELL Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE writ petitioner, Tripura Sankar Shell, appeared in the Final L.L.B. Examination for the year 1987 held in 1988 of the University of Calcutta with Roll No. Cal. 2146 as a candidate from Surendranath Law College. When the result was announced the petitioner got a total of 268 marks, 2 marks short of the required aggregate of 270 to get a second class. The petitioner applied for re -examination of his answer scripts of Public International Law and Drafting of Pleadings and Documents and paid the requisite fee. It is stated by the petitioner that in case he got 269 marks then automatically one mark would have been allotted as a matter of rule and convention and he would have been declared pass.

(2.) ON 15th November, 1990 the petitioner received a letter from the Assistant Controller of Examinations, Calcutta University, informing him that with reference to his application for re - examination of answer papers for Paper I (Public International Law) and Paper II (Drafting of Pleadings and Documents) at the Final L.L.B. Examination, 1987 held in 1988, it was regretted that no re -examination there had been no change in his result. The petitioner's learned Advocate made a representation on 1st April, 1991 and in reply thereto the Assistant Controller of Examinations, Calcutta University, by a letter dated 2nd April, 1991 informed the learned Advocate of the petitioner that on 're -examination of the answer scripts of Paper I and Paper II of the candidate it was found that no mark was enhanced, and therefore, the question of awarding full benefit of revised marks did not arise.

(3.) ON 24th July, 1991 this Court passed an order directing the Controller of Examinations to produce the two papers on Public International Law and Drafting of Pleadings and Documents before the Court so that the Court might be satisfied as to the fairness and reasonableness of the re -examination of the answer scripts. On 21st August, 1991 the Court perused the paper on Drafting of Pleadings and Documents and it was prima facie found that certain questions were not at all given marks though the answers were contained in the answer scripts. The Court did not point out the exact questions but left the matter entirely to the Calcutta University authorities to look into it afresh. The position was also admitted by the learned Advocate of the University. The Court directed the Vice -Chancellor to appoint an Expert of the subject to examine the Second Paper of Drafting of Pleadings and Documents for thorough check up and to see whether any question answered by the petitioner has been left unmarked and if such detection was found the marks should be allotted and calculated accordingly. It was further directed that the learned Advocate of the University would produce the report of the Vice -Chancellor along with the notes of the Expert and also the answer scripts of the Second Paper.