CHITRA DAS Vs. UNIVERSITY OF CALCUTTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed by a number of students of Calcutta University who appeared in the Final LL.B. Examination of the year 1987 praying inter alia for issuance of a Writ of Mandamus commanding the respondents Calcutta University Authority to publish the petitioners' result of the Final Law Examination of the year 1987 (held in 1988) taking cognizance of the Labour Law (Paper V) of the said Examination and the performance of the petitioners in the said paper V and for other consequential reliefs by quashing all steps, orders and directions taken or issued by the Final Examination in Law, 1987 by the petitioners and/or from taking any steps to debar from appearing in the future exam of the said University. Similar other petitions have been filed. It is asserted that since the right to relief arising out of the same acts or transactions, or a series of the acts of the said transaction, exist in respect of the cases of the petitioners and common question of law and fact arise and all of them may be heard by this Court and may be disposed of by a common judgment. The learned Counsel appearing for both sides have agreed on this point and have suggested that the matter may heard comprehensively by this Court by permitting the University Authorities to file affidavits in order to controvert allegations and to place on record on material documents and relevant facts for effective adjudication of the matter in dispute.

(2.) It is stated that on October 11, 1988 the petitioners appeared in the Final LL.B, Examination for Paper V in different rooms of Ashutosh Building of the said University. The Examinations were held in Room No. 25, 27 and 30 of the said building. According to the petitioners they completed their respective answer papers and duly submitted to the respective Invigilator concerned on duty in the respective rooms well within the scheduled hour. The hour of the examination was scheduled from 16.00 A.M. to 1.00 P.M. It is alleged that sometime in January 1989, each petitioner received a letter dated December 19, 1988 from the Secretary, Board of Discipline, University of Calcutta accompanied by a large sheet bearing the same date and signed by the said Secretary, Board of Discipline. Accorded to each charge-sheet, each petitioner was charged by the Secretary, Board of Discipline for committing breach of discipline at the Final Law. Examination for 1987 and particulars mentioned therein were as follows: "That in contravention of the rules of the examination you did not submit answer script in Labour Law-Paper-V to the Invigilator concerned and later submitted the same after the scheduled hour in a "fradu1ent manner."" The said letter dated December 19, 1980 from the Secretary, Board of Discipline, University of Calcutta which was accompanied by a charge-sheet sought to inform the petitioners that the meeting of the Sub-Committee of the Board of Discipline, constituted to investigate the cases of breach of discipline at the Final Law Examination would be held in the room of the Deputy Inspector of Colleges, Centenary Budding, 5th Floor on January 16, 1989 at 2.30 P.M. to investigate their respective cases regarding reports against them that they committed breach of discipline at the aforesaid examination. Each petitioner was also directed by each such letter, to appear before the said Sub-Committee on the date and at the hour and place mentioned. They furnished separately explanations of the respective conduct. It is further stated that in each such letter, the candidate was asked to appear before the Sub-Committee as directed, failing which it would be presumed that the candidate concerned had nothing to say in his/her defence and his/her case would be decided exparte without any further reference to him/her.

(3.) It is further alleged that having received the said letters accompanied by the said charge-sheet each petitioner appeared before the said Sub-Committee and furnished explanation in voting and by denying the charge as baseless. The allegations made on the charge-sheet were denied. Each petitioner, however, appeared before the Sub-Committee on January 16, 1989 in response to the respective letter dated December 19, 1988 written by the Secretary, Board of Discipline and each candidate drew the attention of the Sub-Committee to the non-disclosure in the respective charge-sheet as to the facts and circumstances constituting the "fraudulent manner" of submitting the respective answer scripts. It is specifically asserted that each of the petitioners was told during the hearing before the Sub-Committee that since he/ she has denied the charge and that was all and that the Sub-Committee would hear nothing more. The writ petitioners have further alleged that neither on January 16, 1989 nor or any subsequent date, any decision, far less a reasoned one, of the said Sub-Committee was communicated to the petitioner. It was only when the result of the Final Law Examination of 1987 (held in l988) was declared and published on March 20, 1989, the result against the Roll Numbers of the petitioners indicated that they have been "reported against". It is placed on record that such act of the respondent University Authority and the penal measure have affected the academic career of the petitioners and by collecting the marksheets of the Final Law Examination later on the petitioners have found that they have by and large secured fair marks in other five law papers but no marks have at all been considered in respect of paper V (Labour Law) and there is an endorsement to the effect- "Paper V not taken cognizance of; Vide Letter No. BD/1832/RA/Law (Pre, Int, and Final) /87 dated 13.4.1989".