BIDHU BHUSAN MAHARANA Vs. CONTROLLER OF EXAMINATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Application, the petitioner has sought for indulgence of this Court as his result was not published (being withheld) though he has appeared in +3 Commerce Degree Special Examination, 1998 in Commercial Law subject.

(2.) THE claim of the petitioner is that he appeared in +3 Commerce Degree Special Examination, 1998 under the Director, Directorate of Distance Continuing Education (hereinafter referred to as 'DDCE') of Utkal University, Vani Vihar through Kendrapara College, Kendrapara. He was issued Admit Card (Annexure -I) bearing Roll No. 301 E 93501. The petitioner received communication from the Opp. Party No. 2 -DDCE bearing letter No. Ex/32769/98 dated 19.11.1998 that his result has been withheld for non -inclusion of mark in Commercial Law subject. On receipt of the said letter -Annexure -2, he approached the Principal, Kendrapara College, who in his turn vide letter No. 2543 dated 28.11.1998 (Annexure -3) submitted xerox copy of the memo from and the statement showing appearance of the students to Opp. Party No. 2. As the opp. parties did not take any action, the petitioner sent a representation on 20.5.1999 (Annexure -4) and the Principal also vide letter No. 2136/KC dated 26.8.2000 (Annexure -5) again sent the required memos to the opp. parties, but the Opp. parties did not pay any heed to the correspondence. Thereafter a Pleader Notice (Annexure -6) was issued consequent upon which Opp. Party No. 2 requested the Opp. Party No. 1, Controller of Examinations, Utkal University, Vani Vihar to publish his result. In reply, Opp. Party No. 1 in his letter No. EC.III./36389/2001 dated 20.10.2001 (Annexure -8) answered the notice saying that his result has already been declared on 5.10.1999 declaring the petitioner to have failed for non -confirmation of his appearance in Commercial Law paper. Finally the petitioner also wrote under Annexure -9 requesting the Opp. Party No. 1 to publish his result and due to cold response he was constrained to file this Writ Application with a prayer to issue appropriate writ for publishing his result.

(3.) THE sole question falls for determination is that whether the document submitted by the Principal is doubtful. The Opp. Party No. 1 has produced the original mark foil of +3 Special Examination, 1998 submitted by. the Examiner Chittaranjan Panda. It reveals, 20 students appeared in C3 Part II Commercial Law paper and all those papers were being corrected by the Examiner. Accordingly, marks were awarded. The petitioners Roll No. 301 E 93501 does not appear anywhere in the mark file of Utkal University +3 Degree examination (Special Examination; 1998). The Roll No. of the petitioner appearing in the Result sheet clearly shows that he has been declared fail. The copies attached to Annexure -3 showing their statement of distribution of answer book is overwritten in the most of the columns under SL. No. and main answer books including the signature of the petitioner. The memo from attached to Annexure -3 is also overwritten in respect of Roll No. of the petitioner. Therefore, Opp. Party No. 1 has rightly mot placed any reliance on the memos submitted by the Principal under Annexure -3. Moreover the Examiner has not received any paper of Commercial Law in respect of the petitioner.