ASMI PRAMANIK Vs. VICE CHANCELLOR BURDWAN UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner in this case appeared in B. A. Part II Examination of 1971 of the Burdwan University. The marks he obtained in the said examination would be evident from the following table :-- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_482_AIR(CAL)_1972Html1.htm</FRM>

(2.) On the service of the rule the University authorities have entered appearance and filed an affidavit-in-opposition disputing the contentions made in the petition and also opposing the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of the writs. It was contended that Regulation 7 provides the conditions for qualifying for the Part II and Degree examinations. The conditions are securing 33% marks in each subject and 35% marks in the aggregate, both in the elective subjects. Regulations 18 and 19 make it clear that the marks in excess of 33% in the additional subject is to be added to the aggregate of successful candidates only and such marks are not to be taken in consideration for securing minimum pass marks in the aggregate obtained by a candidate. In view of the marks obtained by the petitioner the decision of the University in not declaring him successful in the examinations is a legal and proper decision.

(3.) Mr. Ganga Narayan Chanda, learned Advocate for the petitioner has contended that the literal meaning of the language of Regulation 18 is that the marks in excess of 33% in the additional subject Is to be taken into account in computing the aggregate marks secured by a candidate. He submitted that there was no warrant for inserting the word "successful" before the word "candidate" in Regulation 18 as the provision of the Regulation is clear and unambiguous. He has referred me to a decision in the case of Management, Sahadara (Delhi) Saharanpur Light Railway Co. Ltd. v. S. S. Railway Workers Union. in which it was observed that the Court ought to give a literal meaning to the language used by Parliament unless the language is abmiguous or its literal sense gives rise to an anomaly or results in something which would defeat the purpose of the Act.