JUDGMENT The Court : In this writ petition, the petitioner had appeared as a private candidate in M.A. Examination for Ancient History and Culture Examination held in the Year 1988. The result was declared by the University in the month of April, 1989. Immediately after the publication of the result, the petitioner came to know that he was found unsuccessful in the final M.A. Examination. The roll number of the petitioner was Roll-Cal (N) A.I.S.C. No. 179. 2. Few days after petitioner collected the mark-sheet and found that there was short-fall of 3 marks in the aggregate and his total was 317 as against the pass marks of 320. 3. Since some suspicion cropped up in the mind of the petitioner with regard to the valuation of the answer papers, he made an application for review of the first paper and sixth paper answer scripts after depositing requisite fees. Notwithstanding several representations, when no acceptable action was taken by the University authority, petitioner was obliged to file the instant writ application. 4. This Court asked the University authority for production of answer scripts. In terms of the order of the Court a report was sent by the University authority where it was indicated that the script of paper No.6 of 2nd half is not traceable. In the report it has been further indicated that after revaluation in petitioner has secured in the 1st paper 1st half 15 which he has got 17 at the beginning. Similarly in the 1st paper 2nd half it was increased from 15 to 17. Therefore, the total remain unchanged. In respect of 4th paper, 1st half it was noticed that there was no addition of marks after re-valuation. Since 6th paper, 2nd half was not traceable, the matter had been placed before the Vice-Chancellor who passed an order that there was 4 marks less in total of 1st half and 2nd half average marks in paper No.6. Thus, the result of the writ petitioner remained unchanged. 5. Mr. Haque, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has argued with strong intensity of conviction that since the University authorities, upon whom public trust and confidence is reposed, has acted whimsically, arbitrarily with a closed mind inasmuch as the authority had shirked their responsibility from preserving the answer scripts in a proper manner. Mr. 5. Mr. Haque, the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has argued with strong intensity of conviction that since the University authorities, upon whom public trust and confidence is reposed, has acted whimsically, arbitrarily with a closed mind inasmuch as the authority had shirked their responsibility from preserving the answer scripts in a proper manner. Mr. Haque has also cited a xerox copy of a judgment by a Division Bench of this Court in F.M.A.T. No. 598 of 1990. It has been submitted that in the above-mentioned case the Division Bench has taken into consideration regarding the valuation to be done on a missing paper. It has further been contended that the average marks should be taken on the basis of maximum marks secured by a candidate and, thereafter, the result has to be published. It has been further submitted that the University authorities had also questioned about the propriety of the judgment of Division Bench before the Supreme Court and the Special Leave petition was also dismissed. Therefore, the University authorities in the above background taking rationale from the above-mentioned judgment, should make re-valuation in paper No.6, 2nd half. 6. Mr. Haque has placed reliance on a judgment reported in 1996 (2) CLJ 181 in the case of Dilip Bhattacharjee vs. State of West Bengal & Ors. 7. On a perusal of the aforementioned judgment, I find that the said judgment of a learned single Judge is in per incuriam and cannot be accepted as an universally applicable but the points decided in the above mentioned Division Bench's judgment in the case of University of Calcutta vs. Srimati Gopa Chakraborty and Another is applicable since that principle holds the field. 8. Mr. Haque the learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that his client raised a dispute with regard to the re-valuation of paper No.6, 2nd part and that paper was not traceable by the University authorities. At that time, of course, the paper No.1, 1st part was available and the marks remained the same. But subsequently this Court presided over by Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen has directed the University authorities for production of both the papers namely first paper and sixth paper. Both the papers could not be noticed by the University authorities. Therefore, in the aforesaid situation what norms to be taken into consideration has been involved in this writ petition. But subsequently this Court presided over by Justice Shyamal Kumar Sen has directed the University authorities for production of both the papers namely first paper and sixth paper. Both the papers could not be noticed by the University authorities. Therefore, in the aforesaid situation what norms to be taken into consideration has been involved in this writ petition. Taking the broad principle from Gopa Chakraborty's case, I direct the University authorities to take average marks of all the papers and award the differential marks against paper No.1 and paper No.6 in case the petitioner gains some more marks in paper No.1 and paper No.6, the University authority shall take into consideration of such addition of marks and announce the result within a period of 4 weeks from the date of communication of this judgment, and communicate the same to the petitioner. 9. The writ petitioner in the meanwhile shall deposit the original mark-sheet supplied to him with the University authority for their taking proper steps in the matter. 10. The writ petition is a accordingly allowed without any order as to costs. 11. Stay as prayed for by the learned Advocate appearing for the University authorities is considered and allowed. 12. Let there be a stay of operation of this judgment for a period of 3 weeks from date to file an appeal before the Division Bench. 13. All parties are to act on a signed copy of the operative part of this judgment of the usual undertaking. Writ petition allowed.