PADMINI LENKA Vs. CENTRAL INSTITUTE OF HINDI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Petitioner has sought for issuance of mandamus nullifying the punishment imposed on her by declaring her failed in Parangata Course examination held for the academic session 2008 -09.

(2.) ON 11.5.2009, when the Petitioner was appearing in Paper -VII, i.e. Hindi Literature examination, after sitting in the examination hall, the invigilator gave her the answer books & question paper. At 11.45 A.M. another lecturer, namely, Pallava Vishnu, though, not allotted with invigilation duty in the examination hall in which the Petitioner was appearing entered into the said hall & verified the Petitioner's poly bag, which was hanging on the chair of the Petitioner. It contained a water bottle, a pen box & a handkerchief. After such verification, he suddenly took away the answer scripts from the Petitioner on the allegation of mal -practice. According to the Petitioner, no incriminating material was recovered from her, except the water bottle & pen box. The Petitioner has stated that by that time, she already answered about five numbers of questions. Even, as per the examination Rule 5, the Centre Superintendent issued a second new answer book to the Petitioner & the Petitioner having no alternative, again started to answer all eight questions at 11.50 A.M. It is alleged that the second answer script of the Petitioner has not been evaluated & her result was declared as failed in Parangata Course which was published on 29.6.2009. The mark -sheet was issued to the Petitioner on 28.7.2009 by the Regional Centre at Bhubaneswar from which, it would be evident that no mark has been allotted for Paper - VII out of full mark of 80. But, nevertheless, the Petitioner otherwise has secured 64.4% marks as her aggregate mark was 449 out of 700 & 196 out of 300 (practical) & had the marks been allotted to her in Paper -VII, she would have secured first division.

(3.) MR . Samonath Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner vehemently urged that no incriminating material having been seized from the Petitioner, she could not have been held to have indulged in mal -practice while appearing in Paper - VII. He further submitted that the direction issued to the examinees by the institute as at Annexure -3 shows that no examinees should keep with them any paper, book etc. inside the examination hall & if anyone is found to be possessing any paper etc., then the answer script would be seized from such examinees & such examinees will be provided with new answer scripts, which goes to show that the answers given in the new answer script, even in case when some incriminating materials are found from an examinee, is required to be evaluated & such marks secured by the examinee in the new answer script should be awarded to her/him. He, therefore, submitted that in the instant case, it was incumbent upon the Opp. Parties 1 to 4 to value the second answer script which was provided to the Petitioner even conceding that the water bottle & the pen box are incriminating materials.