JUDGMENT : 1. The present writ petition has been filed by ore Kshetrabasi Sahu praying inter alia : to direct the opp. party No. 2 to rectify the mark-sheet under Annexure-2 issued to the petitioner in the Final Degree ( B.A. Honours) Examination and also direct him to give/award marks in Paper-I of English in Pre-Degree Examination, i.e., 45 marks as has been secured by the petitioner as per Annexure-I, to direct the opposite parties to declare the result of the petitioner as 'passed' with Second Class Honours in English. 2. It is stated in details that the petitioner was a student of Final Degree of S.C.S. Morning College for the session 1991-94. He appeared in the Pre-Degree Examination in the year 1993 and secured 45 marks in English Paper-I. Copy of the mark sheet of Pre-Degree Examination is filed herewith as Annexure-1. The petitioner appeared for the Final Degree (8.A. Honours) Examination in the year 1994 and the result of the said Examination was declared on 22-8-1994. The Mark-sheet of the Final Degree B. A. Examination was issued to the petitioner on 26-8-1994. In the said Mark-sheet it was found that in English Paper-I of the Pre-Degree Examination, it was written 'absent' and as a result of which, the petitioner has been declared 'failed' though he obtained second class Honours in English. Thereafter the petitioner submitted representation to opp. party No. 2 (Controller of Examinations, Utkal University) on 30-8-1994 stating all the facts and prayed inter alia for rectification of mark sheet under Annexure-2. On 6-9-1994 the petitioner sent a reminder. In spite of repeated reminders, nothing was heard and the representation and the reminder were alleged to be kept in cold storage. Stating all these facts the petitioner has approached the writ Court impleading the University authorities and also the Centre Superintendent who was the Principal of the College as opposite parties. 3. The Principal who was the Centre Superintendent did not appear even after receiving the notice. The University authorities filed a counter affidavit wherein it was stated that due to wrong feeding of the computer the marks awarded to English (Honours) candidates in respect of Core-3 English Honours Paper-IV were also wrongly shown against the column prescribed for Core-I English Paper-I in respect of all English Honours students. The University authorities filed a counter affidavit wherein it was stated that due to wrong feeding of the computer the marks awarded to English (Honours) candidates in respect of Core-3 English Honours Paper-IV were also wrongly shown against the column prescribed for Core-I English Paper-I in respect of all English Honours students. After detecting the said mistake the Controller of Examinations vide his letter dated 16-12-1993 intimated all the concerned Colleges including the petitioner's College regarding the aforesaid mistake. In the said letter the Controller had enclosed a copy of the revised marks of the students for their Intimation and to take necessary action considering their revised marks for repeat of that examination if they desire to do so. In the counter affidavit it is further stated that the Memo Form sent by the Superintendent of the S.C. S. College, Puri to the Principal, Government College, Angul (where Zonal Valuation is being held) clearly indicated the Roll number of the petitioner in Para-C which is meant for absentee candidates. As the petitioner did not choose to appear in the said Examination again to get himself passed, no result could be declared. Other allegations of the petitioner have been denied. 4. While the matter came before this Court on 26-7-1995, it was recorded that the Court was shocked to find that for wrong feeding of the computer erroneous results were communicated. Subsequently certain steps were taken to rectify the same. The Court was not satisfied with the counter affidavit filed by the Utkal University. Consequently the University Authorities were directed to produce such relevant records as to how the mistakes occurred and proper steps taken to correct the same within four weeks from the said date. There was a direction to put up this matter after four weeks. Since then the University authorities are sitting tight over the matter. Neither any records have bean produced before us nor any affidavit has been filed. At the time of final hearing today, attempt has been taken to adjourn this matter. On hearing both sides the prayer for adjournment was refused. 5. Considering the matter in depth and details we find that the allegations of the petitioner remain uncontroverted. The petitioner has denied unequivocally that he was absent on the relevant date. At the time of final hearing today, attempt has been taken to adjourn this matter. On hearing both sides the prayer for adjournment was refused. 5. Considering the matter in depth and details we find that the allegations of the petitioner remain uncontroverted. The petitioner has denied unequivocally that he was absent on the relevant date. It is submitted by the learned lawyer of the University authorities that the University authorities have no control over the Principal although he was shown to be the Centre Superintendent, No relevant records were produced before us to adjudicate that actually the petitioner was found absent on the relevant date. In the absence of production of relevant documents lying in the custody of the appropriate authorities, an adverse inference can be drawn in accordance with law. Besides, all the relevant records are lying in the custody of the University authorities to come to the conclusion that there was wrong feeding of the computer and for such wrong feeding, marks were wrongly made in respect of English Honours paper, and opportunity being given, the University authorities with its own wisdom chase to remain silent and did not come forward to this Court for effective adjudication of the matter in dispute. Regard being had to the materials on record and to the facts and circumstances of the case, we are constrained to observe that in this case the University authorities have acted in a way which is not expected from the responsible University authorities. They deserve the comments from this Court that they are not taking effective steps to protect the interest of the students and they have not co-operated with the Court for effective adjudication. When sufficient opportunity was granted to produce the records, all the cards ought to have been placed before this Court. Such non-production of documents which are very relevant for the purpose of adjudication of the matter not only calls for an adverse inference but also it indicates that had the documents been produced, they would have gone in favour of the students. That is why the documents have purposely been not produced. Considering all the facts, we are of the view that in this case bona fide student is going to suffer for the inaction on the part of the University authorities. That is why the documents have purposely been not produced. Considering all the facts, we are of the view that in this case bona fide student is going to suffer for the inaction on the part of the University authorities. Our conscience is satisfied that on the relevant date the petitioner was not absent and the marks shown in the mark sheet have been arbitrarily and erroneously rectified on the alleged plea of wrong feeding of the computer. Consequently we find that the writ application succeeds. We accordingly quash the communication dated 16-12-1993 by the Controller of Examination, so far as the petitioner is concerned. We issue an appropriate writ directing the University authorities to declare the result of the petitioner taking note that he was present on the date of examination of English Paper-I and 45 marks as shown in the original Mark-sheet should be construed as the proper marks and on that basis, the result should be declared and proper mark-sheet should be issued within four weeks from the date of communication of the Court's order. The writ application is disposed of. No order as to costs. Requisites shall be filed by Monday.