SAKTI RUPA CHAKRABORTY Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -The petitioner in the present case, after passing her M.B.B.S. Examination, was selected for the Diploma Course in Obstetrics and Gynecology, which, in abbreviated form, is known as D.G.O., of the Calcutta University and duly passed the same in 1978. The petitioner, thereafter, joined the West Bengal Health Service, and at the relevant time, was working as a Medical Officer in the Department of O & G in N.R.S. Medical College at Calcutta. Pursuant to an advertisement, the petitioner submitted an application for admission in the M.D. (O & G) Course of the Calcutta University for the session, commencing in the year 1988, and the petitioner being a West Bengal Health Service candidate, her case was sponsored by the State Government for appearance in the entrance examination for one of the five seats, reserved for the Medical Officers of the West Bengal Health Service. The list published upto 8th August, 1988 contained the petitioner's name along with the names of five other candidates for the five seats reserved for West Bengal Health Service. The petitioner secured joint fourth position along with two other candidates. In that situation, although the petitioner became successful in the written tests, she had to appear at an interview before a Selection Committee for selection of two out of three candidates securing the same fourth position. From the list published on 5th September, 1988, it seemed that the petitioner did not succeed in the interview as her name did not appear in the list of successful candidates in such interview. On the basis of representation made by the petitioner thereafter, inter-alia, pleading past precedents, the Government requested the University to accommodate the petitioner by increasing one seat in the quota of Government seats, if necessary, by reducing the Government quota next year by one. Such representation of the petitioner or the recommendation of the Government having proved abortive, the writ application was moved on or about 28th November, 1988. The application was ultimately heard out as a contested application upon service of notice to the concerned University Authorities as also to the Medical Council of India through its Secretary.

(2.) At the hearing the University respondents filed their opposition and were represented by Mr. Das Adhikary affidavit-in-reply had been filed on behalf of the petitioner. There was no appearance, however, on behalf of the Medical Council of India. On behalf of the appearing parties detailed submissions had been made which included validity and propriety of the interview and vires of the rules framed by the University, apart from correctness of the process of allotment of marks in such interview.

(3.) As regards the objective aspect of the matter the admitted position is that if the petitioner was the lone candidate securing fourth position, then even without an interview she would have been found eligible for prosecuting M.D. Course in Obstetrics and Gynecology. The interview had brought failure to her. The candidate/petitioner has challenged the allotment of marks in the written tests on the basis of which she secured a common position with other candidates. For justifying the marking and for substantiating the stand taken to that effect by the University Authorities, the answer script of the petitioner had been produced before this Court. From the affidavits filed by the parties, it has transpired that a candidate had been allotted full marks even for an incorrect answer with regard to a question, which was declared ambiguous by the University, and for every incorrect answer a candidate had been subjected to negative marking, that is, half of the full mark for an incorrect answer had been deducted from the total marks obtained by the candidate. It appears that the candidate had to answer 95 questions by 'ticking method' within a span of one hour fifteen minutes, each question carrying one mark. The broad requirement was to indicate by ticking, on the answer paper itself, the 'most appropriate answer' out of the answers mentioned against each question. Admittedly the University declared three questions as 'ambiguous questions' and due to error with regard to answers to question Nos. 2, 15, 21, 23, 28, 30, 51, 53, 68, 69, 72, 78, 79, 84, 87 and 91, there was negative marking by deducting half mark against each answer thereto.