UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA Vs. MAMATA DATTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A former Chief Justice of India, Justice chandrachud, states in his Foreward to Justice K. K. Mathew's 'democracy, equality and Freedom' (Edited by Dr. Upendra Baxi) that "in our present dispensation, a Judge cannot, except for honourable exceptions, lay plausible claim to legal scholarship". If a Judge of a Court of Law, having had to decide questions of law day in and day out, cannot still lay plausible claim to legal scholarship, he should not a fortiori have any claim to know non-law matters like Medical Science or such other subjects of speciality. At any rate, my learned brother Guin, J. , and I have no claim to legal or any other scholarship and would never dream of laying any claim to any knowledge in Medical sciences and that too of Post-graduate level Why I make this observation would appear hereinafter.

(2.) THE writ-Petitioner, who is now Respondent before us, has challenged the correctness of the test-examination for admission to the N. D. Course in obstretics and Gynecology. The pattern of examination is what is called 'multiple-Choice-Objective-Type Test There was one paper containing 95 questions; four alternative answers were set out against each question and the candidate was to choose one by putting a tick -mark to the most appropriate answer. One mark was to be allotted for the correct choice, half-mark was to be deducted for an incorrect choice. The Paper-setter supplied to the University the correct answer to each question, called the 'key-answer'. The Writ Petitioner contended that she was wrongly declared to have failed on the basis of such 'key-Answers' as many of those answers were wrong while her answers were correct.

(3.) THE Appellant University, as directed by the learned trial Judge, referred the questions and the answers to two experts in succession and their reports were duly received. It is not disputed, and has rather been rarely conceded by the learned Counsel for the Respondent, that even on. the basis of those two reports and after giving full effect thereto, the Petitioner could not obtain the minimum marks necessary for admission.