RUBY SETT Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner who appeared in the admission test of M. D. Course in General Medicine under the University of Calcutta which was held on 14-7-81 at the Institute of Post Graduate Medical Education and Research has come up with this application with this grievance that though out of 75 questions she answered 74 questions correctly and though her academic career was all along brilliant and she was entitled to get the 20 marks set apart for good academic career was not properly considered, rather discriminated upon and as such her name was not included in the list of successful candidates for being admitted in the said M. D. Course in Medicine. It has also been stated in this petition that the examiners did not properly value and/ or assess the answer scripts of the petitioner vis-a-vis the answer scripts submitted by the other examinees and as a result the petitioner was not selected in the said admission test and her name was not enlisted as one of the successful candidates in order to get admission in the said M. D. Course in Medicine.

(2.) Mr. Roy, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the Calcutta University, has filed an affidavit in opposition denying those allegations and stating, inter alia, that in accordance with the rules the answer papers of all the examinees including the petitioner were duly assessed by the examiners and there has been no discrimination in the matter of assessment of the answer papers. It has been submitted that the marks were given on these answers after proper assessment of the same. It has also been submitted by Mr. Roy that in accordance with the rules for the answers which were not correct half marks have been deducted against each of the incorrect answers in accordance with the rules. Referring to the case of the petitioner Mr. Roy submitted that she secured 50 marks for having answered correctly 50 questions and for giving incorrect answers 12 marks were deducted in respect of 24 such incorrect answers. As such she secured only 38 marks and 4 marks were given i. e. 3 + 1 on assessment of her academic career. In total the petitioner secured only 42 marks and as such she could not secure the qualifying marks for getting her name enlisted in the list of successful candidates.

(3.) Mr. Chatterjee, however, referring to Annexure A to the affidavit in opposition sworn on behalf of the University submitted in the first place that if the answer scripts of the examinees particularly two of the successful examinees i. e. Shri Apurba Kumar Mukherjee and Shri Roxy Senior whose names appeared in the list in order of merits as 2 and 1 respectively are produced before this Court it would be apparent from the assessment made that the answers that have been given by these examinees though do not tally with the model answers as referred to in Annexure B to the affidavit in opposition were taken into consideration and marks were given on such answers. It has been next commented upon by Mr. Chatterjee that the academic careers of Shri Roxy Senior and Shri Apurba Kumar Mukherjee are not so briliant as that of the petitioner, still then about 14 marks have been awarded on this count whereas the petitioner has been given only 4 marks and on this count also the marks were not awarded to the petitioner in consideration of her academic career.