Tripur. Sankar Chell v. University of Calcutta — 1991 DIGILAW 465 (CAL)

JUDGMENT 1. The writ petitioner, Tripura Sankar Chell, appeared in the Final LL.B Examination for the year 1987 held in 1988 of the University of Calcutta with Roll No. Cal. 2146 as a candidate from Surendranath Law College. When the result was announced the petitioner got a total of 268 marks, 2 marks short of the required aggregate of 270 to get a second class. The petitioner applied for re-examination of his answer scripts of Public International Law and Drafting of Pleadings and Documents and paid the requisite fee. It is stated by the petitioner that in case he got 269 marks then automatically one mark would have been allotted as a matter of rule and convention and he would have been declared pass. 2. On 15th November, 1990 the petitioner received a letter from the Assistant Controller of Examinations, Calcutta University, informing him that with reference to his application for re-examination of answer papers for Paper I (Public International Law) and Paper II (Drafting of Pleadings and Documents) at the Final LL.B. Examination, 1987 held in 1988. It was regretted that on re-examination there had been no change in his result. The petitioner', learned Advocate made a' representation on 1st April, 1991 and in reply thereto the Assistant Controller of Examinations, Calcutta University, by a letter dated 2nd April, 1991 informed the learned Advocate of the petitioner that on re-examination of the answer script of Paper I and Paper II of the candidate It was found that no mark was enhanced, and, therefore, the question of awarding full benefit of revised marks did not arise. 3. On 24th July, 1991 this Court passed an order directing the Controller of Examinations to produce the two papers on Public International Law and Drafting of Pleadings and Documents before the Court so that the Court might be satisfied as to the fairness and reasonableness of the re-examination of the answer scripts. On 21st August, 1991 the Court perused the paper on Drafting of Pleadings and Documents and it was prima facie found that certain questions were not at all given marks though the answers were contained in the answer scripts. The Court did not point out the exact questions but left the matter entirely to the Calcutta University authorities to look into it afresh. The position was also admitted by the learned Advocate of the University. The Court did not point out the exact questions but left the matter entirely to the Calcutta University authorities to look into it afresh. The position was also admitted by the learned Advocate of the University. The Court directed the Vice-Chancellor to appoint an Expert of the subject to examine the Second Paper of Drafting of Pleadings and Documents for thorough check up and to see whether any question answered by the petitioner has been left unmarked and if such detection was found the marks should be allotted and calculated accordingly. It was further directed that the learned Advocate of the University would produce the report of the Vice-Chancellor along with the notes of the Expert and also the answer scripts of the Second Paper. 4. The Controller of Examinations by a letter dated 19th September, 1991 informed the learned Advocate on record of the petitioner that “as per order of the Hon'ble High Court and as directed by the Vice-Chancellor the pass mark-sheet showing 2nd Class of Final LL.B. Examination, 1987 has been prepared in favour of Tripura Sankar Chell bearing Roll Cal. 2146 and sent to the Principal, Surendranath Law College". The petitioner was instructed to collect the same from the College. The revised mark-sheet allots 42 marks out of 100 in the Second Paper of Drafting of Pleadings and Documents instead of 36 marks earlier given when the petitioner plucked. 5. On 26th September, 1991 when the matter came up for hearing finally the learned Advocate for the University Mr. Pranab Chetterjee handed over a Report dated nil by Mr. Sisir Kumar Mukherjee, a retired Judge of Calcutta High Court. The Report, Inter alia, contains the following :- "The examiner has failed to allot marks to question Nos. 4(b), 7(a) and 2(b) which the candidate has answered in full," Mr. Mukherjee while examining the answer scripts at the direction of the Vice-Chancellor deducted 8 marks allotted to Question No.4(a) from total 36 and added 4,6 and 4 marks thereto in Questions 4(b), 7(a) and 2(b) and revised the aggregate to 42 marks, In the concluding paragraph Mr. Mukherjee stated as follows:- "The omission to allot marks to three questions which the candidate has answered is inexplicable having regard to the enumeration of answered questions in a cage which appears on the front cover of the answer script. Mukherjee stated as follows:- "The omission to allot marks to three questions which the candidate has answered is inexplicable having regard to the enumeration of answered questions in a cage which appears on the front cover of the answer script. The sequence of the answers which continually jumped from one group to other and from one fragment of a question to a fragment of another, may be regarded as a possible source of confusion though that by itself hardly Justifies the failure of the examiner to apply his mind to the task he has token upon himself." While Mr. Mukherjee has tried to shield the examiner somewhat but he had to accept that the failure of the examiner to leave the questions unassessed could not be justified. At the top of the report of Mr. Mukherjee, the Vice-Chancellor in a note dated 10th September, 1991 wrote ;- “Accept the report-calculate the marks and issue revised mark sheet-report to the Hon'ble Court. Action be taken against the concerned examiner, H.E., re-examiner and scrutineers." I appreciate the note given by the Vice-Chancellor and I hope that in accordance to the note of the Vice-Chancellor appropriate steps shall be taken against those who are responsible for the misdeed and irresponsibly discharging their duties. But I must note that the Vice Chancellor ought to have submitted a report containing the above observation properly to the Court in keeping with the direction of 26th September, 1991. The Vice-Chancellor, I must record, has shown discourtesy to the Court. 6. The petitioner's purpose has been fulfilled by moving the writ petition and with the intervention of the Court the petitioner has been declared successful in Second Division in the Final LL. B. Examination of 1987. Had not the Court intervened, the petitioner would have remained an unsuccessful candidate of the said examination in the light of the result announced as well as in view of the two communications received from the Assistant Controller of Examinations of Calcutta University dated 15th November, 1990 and 2nd April, 1991, respectively, It has rightly been submitted by Mr. Had not the Court intervened, the petitioner would have remained an unsuccessful candidate of the said examination in the light of the result announced as well as in view of the two communications received from the Assistant Controller of Examinations of Calcutta University dated 15th November, 1990 and 2nd April, 1991, respectively, It has rightly been submitted by Mr. Mukherjee, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner, on the basis of the Supplementary Affidavit affirmed on 23rd September, 1991 that the petitioner suffered mental anxiety, torture and depression these years since the declaration of result in 1989 and had to bear considerable legal expenses for moving the Hon'ble High Court since May, 1990. It is further submitted that the petitioner could have got some employment as Law Graduate somewhere on a modest salary or could have joined the legal profession as an. Advocate or could have been appointed as a Munsif by appearing in W.B.C.S. (Judicial) Examination. It is forcefully submitted by the learned Advocate of the petitioner that all these years since the declaration of result in 1989 the petitioner had to face humiliation before his relatives and friends as a failed student of LL.B. Examination and also his career was marred for over two-and-a-half years which is the golden period of a young man's career and more so when the petitioner was less than 25 years old then. Mr. Mukherjee forcefully pleaded that conscionable justice should be done to the petitioner for the deliberate mala fide act on the part of the University of Calcutta by granting the petitioner adequate compensatory relief which he very rightly and legitimately deserves. This aspect of the case was not before the petitioner or the Court when the writ petition was moved. 7. I have considered the facts of this unfortunate case and gone through its history since the day it was moved in the Hon'ble High Court. This Court tried it best to go deep into the malady that infected the petitioner and for this reason directed the University on 21st August, 1991 to produce before the Court the First and the Second Papers on Public International Law and Drafting of Pleadings and Documents, respectively. This Court tried it best to go deep into the malady that infected the petitioner and for this reason directed the University on 21st August, 1991 to produce before the Court the First and the Second Papers on Public International Law and Drafting of Pleadings and Documents, respectively. On perusal of the Second Paper on Drafting of Pleadings and Documents this Court was convinced at the very first site that several answers of the questions were left unassessed and unmarked by the Examiner and it, was more surprising to the Court when the Assistant Controller of Examinations of the University in two different letters of 15th November, 1990 and 2nd April, 1991 reiterated that no marks was enhanced and there had been no change in the result. But when the Court directed the Vice-Chancellor to appoint an Expert for the examination of the Second Paper of the petitioner without mentioning the answers of the questions which were left unmarked and the Vice-Chancellor appointed Mr. Sisir Kumar Mukherjee a retired Judge of the Calcutta High Court, as the Expert Examiner, the cat was out of the bag. The Report reveals that three questions answered in full by the petitioner were not allotted marks and the Examiner criminally failed to perform his duty. The result of re-examination was that the petitioner was declared pass in the Final LL. B. Examination of 1987 and the mark-sheer was sent to his College from where he collected the same. Mr. Justice Mukherjee has squarely held the Examiner for his failure to sincerely, correctly and rightly examining the Paper on Drafting of Pleadings and Documents. But at the same, time I totally disagree when Mr. Justice Mukherjee says that "The sequence of the answers which continually jumped from one group to the other and from the fragment of a question to a fragment of another, may be regarded as a possible source of confusion........." This Court is not used to examine the papers but as I said earlier at the very fine site and without any effort I detected the omissions committed by the Examiner in allotting marks and the plea of any confusion does not arise at all so far an examiner is concerned who is well-versed in this art. 8. As stated above the Vice-Chancellor by his note dated 11th September, 1991 has accepted the Report of Mr. 8. As stated above the Vice-Chancellor by his note dated 11th September, 1991 has accepted the Report of Mr. Justice Mukherjee and directed that, "action be taken against the concerned examiner, H.E., re-examiner and scrutineers". The University must take severe action against the erring examiners and others who were in any way responsible or associated with such herculean blunder which is the outcome of sheer negligence and irresponsibility, and an apathy from discharging duties sincerely. 9. There is no denying the fact that the petitioner Tripura Sankar Chell has suffered mental anxiety, depression and insult of being an unworthy student since the declaration of result of the Final LL.B. Examination of 1987 in 1989. Had he been declared successful he would have added to his credit about two-and a half years of legal practice either in a sub ordinate Court or in the High Court. The experience of this Court is that there was a time when a junior Advocate had to struggle hard for years together to earn a livelihood but now the time has changed and two-and-a-half years more or less are sufficient for an Advocate to have a modest earning in the High Court specially in the High Court's Writ Jurisdiction, Further It is also a fact that he could have taken part in the West Bengal Civil Services (Judicial) Examination for selection as a Munsif and could have succeeded had his result been announced in time correctly. Apart from the above, there was a good chance for him in other competitive examinations or to get an employment to any multinational organisation or a good establishment which would have made his career a prosperous onto He has been deprived of the aforesaid chances by the sheer negligence and deliberate insincerity on the part of the authorities of the Calcutta University and this act of the University is not condonable. The time has come when the Calcutta University should be dealt with adequately for the 'criminal negligence' that was meted out to the petitioner and the way the authorities of the University dealt with his application for re-examination in half-hearted way without even caring to look into the paper on Drafting of Pleadings and Documents and writing him again and again that there was no change in his result and the result announced stood unchanged. 10. 10. Undoubtedly the valuable two-and-a-half years or so that slipped out of the petitioner's hand cannot be remained and it is impossible to put a hearing balm on the injury already inflicted upon the petitioner by the University. The High Court in its writ jurisdiction has ample extraordinary powers to serve the needs of the people as well as the needs of the society. The Court must keep pace with the heartbeats of the people 'and their needs and aspirations. It is for the judiciary to' uphold justice and to implement it properly so that the victim must feel that justice has been done, not symbolically but practically. I am firmly of the view that the petitioner must be paid damages for the way the University of Calcutta behaved with him in examining his Second Paper on Drafting of Pleadings and Documents with utter negligence and even after re-examination of the same reiterating the stand taken by the Examiners who committed the 'criminal act' of not allotting marks to the three questions which were fully answered by the candidate. The Court strongly deprecates the conduct of the authorities of the University of Calcutta and the method they have adopted in not redressing the grievances of an examinee even after repeated requests and prayers. Once the Calcutta University was the premier University of India but today, one is sorry to say, it has lost that premier status and has come down considerable. This weakness in the administration of the University indicates inherent lack of control by the top officials of the University over their subordinates who are comfortably slipping out of their control because of inadequate vigilance and rampant indiscipline. 11. In the circumstances I direct the University of Calcutta and the Vice-Chancellor to pay as compensatory damages to the petitioner Tripura Sankar Chell a sum of Rs. 25,000.00 (Rupees twenty five thousand) only within 31st December, 1991 and the time limit must be maintained strictly. The Vice-Chancellor is further directed to take appropriate action against the concerned erring examiner, head examiner, re-examiner. scrutineers and those who were in any way responsible in connection with this matter. 12. The writ application is allowed with the above direction. The Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall pay cost assessed at 100 G.M.s to the petitioner. 13. scrutineers and those who were in any way responsible in connection with this matter. 12. The writ application is allowed with the above direction. The Respondent Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4 and 5 shall pay cost assessed at 100 G.M.s to the petitioner. 13. The Registrar, Appellate Side, is directed to send xerox copies of the judgment to the Vice-Chancellor, the Registrar and the Controller of Examination of the University of Calcutta at College Square, Calcutta-73, by Special Messenger without delay. 14. The Registrar is further directed to see that the xerox copy of the judgment be made available to the parties on usual undertaking and upon compliance of necessary formalities. After the delivery of the judgment, Mr. Chatterjee, appearing for the University of Calcutta, has prayed for stay of the order. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case I am not inclined to grant any stay and as such the prayer for stay is rejected.