BIJAYAKETAN DAS Vs. UTKAL UNIVERSITY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Non-declaration of results of annual Inter Law Examination and Final Law Examination has brought petitioner before this Court. Petitioner appeared as a candidate at the annual Inter Law Examination conducted by Utkal University (hereinafter referred to as 'University') in May, 1992. Subsequently, he appeared at the annual Final Examination held in April, 1993. His results were not declared and were withheld. When petitioner met the functionaries of University, he was told that his answer script in respect of Paper IV of Inter Law Examination was not available and therefore, results were not published. He made an application to the Controller of Examinations who by letter dated 24-4-1994, requested the Principal of Gangadhar Mohapatra Law College, Puri to furnish copy of memo form sent to the University by the Centre Superintendent containing roll numbers of candidates whose answer papers had been sent to the University authorities for valuation and the attendance sheet of the candidates in respect of the aforesaid examination. Those documents were sent to the Principal on 7-5-1994. They clearly indicated that petitioner had taken examination in the concerned paper.

(2.) From the counter affidavit, we find that petitioner's results were withheld because answer script relating to paper-IV was missing and in its absence results cannot be declared. It is stated that the Examination Committee in its resolution dated 5-11-1994 recommended that since all possible methods have been adopted and failed, re-examination should be taken for the candidates in the concerned papers. Syndicate of the University approved the said recommendation on 17-11-1994.

(3.) Learned counsel for petitioner relied on a decision of this Court in Ajit Kumar Baral v. Utkal University, (1990) 1 OLR 554: (AIR 1990 Orissa 174) to highlight that stand of University is inconsistent. In the said case it has been stated that proportionate quotient method, commonly known as 'PQ' method, was applied by the University in case any answer paper of the examinee is lost. In other cases they do not follow the stand and rely in the absence of any provision for application of PQ methodd to rule out its application Reference is made to Abantika Khadiratna v. State of Orissa in OJC No. 5561 of 1994, disposed of on 20-3-1995. Mr. Swain appearing for the University submits that there is no prescription for application of PQ method either in the University Statutes or Regulation and therefore, PQ method cannot be applied in all the cases and therefore petitioner should appear again in the examination where answer paper is lost.