PADMALAYA SATPATHY Vs. VICE-CHANCELLOR SAMBALPUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner after completing her graduation in the year 1995 with Education as her Honours subject opted for teaching career and wanted to appear in B.Ed. Examination which was scheduled to be held in the year 1`996. THE petitioner, accordingly, applied to the opp. parties for necessary permission and after due consideration and scrutiny of the documents, she was allowed to appear in the B.Ed. Examination as a private candidate. She filled up her form and was issued with an Admit Card allowing her to appear in the said examination in the year 1996 from the centre C.T.E., Bolangir having roll No. 02 B.Ed.96P. 341. When the result of the said examination was declared,she did not find her name in the list of successful candidates.After obtaining the mark sheet, it was found that she has becomeunsuccessful in securing the minimum pass marks in twosubjects, i.e., Paper - III and in Oriya Method - II. In theaforesaid subjects, she was awarded 13 and 29 marksrespectively though she was required to secure minimum 36marks in each of the papers. She approached the opp. parties forrechecking of the marks in both the papers. THE opp. parties afterrechecking communicated to the petitioner that there is nochange of marks. Thus, being unsuccessful, the petitioner filledup the form to appear and repeat the examination in both the twopapers in which she could not succeed and for which theexamination was scheduled to be held in May, 1998. She wasallowed to appear in both the aforesaid papers. THE petitioner hasasserted that though she faired well in both the papers andexpected more than 50% marks out of the total marks, but whenthe results were declared, she found her result to be withheld.Though she attempted to know the reasons for withholding herresult, but could not get any satisfactory reply from the opp.parties. Subsequently, her father from a reliable source couldknow that apart from the aforesaid two back papers, the petitioner was also not able to secure the minimum qualifyingmarks, in Paper-II of the B.Ed. Examination, which was held inthe year 1996. But in the mark-sheet supplied to the petitioner,which has been annexed as Annexure-1 in connection with B.Ed.Examination, 1996, the petitioner could ascertain that she wasawarded 42 marks in the said Paper-II. Accordingly, she filed arepresentation through her father before the opp. party no. 1which was sent by registered post. But no response was receivedfrom the University authorities regarding her representation inspite of issuing reminder. Ultimately by letter dated 11.10.1999,she was intimated that she has secured 12 marks in Paper - II(Ed. Psychology) and 28 marks in Paper - V +VI of Oriya MethodII. THE letter also said that the original marks submitted alongwith the final B.Ed. form seems to be a forged one without anymention of Paper-III marks which the petitioner has repeated forthe second time. Aggrieved by such action, she again representedbefore the University but to no avail. Being aggrieved, thepetitioner has approached this Court in the present writ petitionseeking quashing of the impugned letter dated 11.10.1999 underAnnexure-8 in so far as the petitioner is concerned and a furtherdirection to the opp. parties 1 and 2 to publish the result of theB.Ed. Examination, 1996 taking into account the marks securedin the papers in which she appeared for the second time. A further prayer has been made to direct the opp. parties 1 and 2to return the B.A. Examination original mark-sheet, C.L.C. andIst B.A. Examination original mark-sheet which were submittedby the petitioner before the University authorities at the time ofscrutiny of documents for issuance of Admit card.

(2.) A counter affidavit has been filed on behalf of theopp. parties, inter alia, stating that the petitioner has secured 12marks in Education Psychology Paper - II and 13 marks inSchool Management and Problems in Indian Education Paper -III and 28 marks in Content-cum-Methodology of Teaching-OriyaMethod Paper - V/VI although the pass marks in all thosesubjects are 36 respectively. It has been further averred that thepetitioner cunningly forged her mark sheet of B. Ed.Examination, 1996 and in place of "12" in Paper - II EducationPsychology, the petitioner interpolated it to "42" and submittedthe same to misguide the University authorities to allow her toappear as a back paper candidate. This was detectedsubsequently when the mark was compared with the tabulationregister.