NAGENDRA KUMAR PADHI Vs. FAKIR MOHAN UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner, who was a Law Graduate, took admission on 30.12.2004 to undertake LL.M. Course in the LL.M. Department of Fakir Mohan University, Balasore, which is under a self financing scheme.

(2.) THE admitted case of the parties is that under the Self Financing Scheme conducted by the University, a candidate has to appear four semester examinations and each semester consists of different subjects. The petitioner's case is that he appeared in all the semester examinations from Ist to 4 th semester in due time as per the programme fixed by the University for which Admit Cards were issued to him by the Controller of Examination opp. Party no.2. In the first semester examination, the petitioner was declared to have passed and he has secured 175 marks out of 300 marks. In so far as the second semester examination was concerned, the mark -sheet was issued in his favour wherein it was shown that against Paper -V, i.e., Legal Education and Research Methodology, the petitioner secured38 marks out of 100 marks for which the petitioner was declared failed. The petitioner assessing his own performance made an application to the University for re -addition of marks on 4.11.2006 and after repeated reminders, on 22.l1.2007, a letter was issued by the University to the petitioner that the marks secured by him as shown in the mark -sheet remains unchanged after rechecking. As the result of rechecking was delayed by more than a year, it is asserted by the petitioner that in the meanwhile, he enquired and came to know that, in fact, he has secured 48 marks out of 100 in Paper -V of the second semester but has been shown to have secured 38 marks.

(3.) MR . Routray, learned senior counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that the University Statute clearly provides that once an application is made for re -addition of marks, the result of the same has to be communicated within 90 days from the date of such application or before filling up of the form for the next semester examination. But, in the instant case, no communication was admittedly made to the petitioner even when the petitioner filled up the form for 3 rd and 4 th semester examinations and his result was also not published when he appeared for the 3 rd and 4 th semester examinations. It was only after declaration of the result of the 3 rd and 4 th semester examinations, the petitioner was communicated by the University that his marks in Paper -V of second semester remained uncharged. In this view of the matter, the petitioner has made allegation that had he been communicated the result of such rechecking within the stipulated time, he could have filled up the form for repeating Paper -V of second semester along with the examinations of 3 rd and 4 th semester and due to such negligence on the part of the University authorities, the petitioner has been deprived of opportunity of filling up of the form for repeating the examination in the said paper V of second semester. Factual allegations have been made in the writ petition that the Controller of Examinations orally informed the petitioner that, in fact, he has secured 48 marks in Paper -V of second semester examination instead of 38.