Judgment :- Amit Talukdar, J. Sometimes as in life so also in a court of law certain situations bubbled up for consideration which if taken care at the right point in the right perspective, can lead to practicable solution or else it may result in irretrievable consequences. In such trajectory, we have been faced with an order under appeal where the University authorities being the Appellants have been pushed to the fore on account of three directions given by the learned Single Judge. We would set out the same in seriatim: “1) The University will pay cost to the tune of Rs.20,000/- to the petitioner within a fortnight from the date of communication of the order. 2) The Controller of Examination will try to find out the answer scripts of the petitioner for his M.A. Examination 1990 in 5th and 8th papers both halves and if found out will get the said two papers scrutinized and will complete such process of finding of those papers and scrutiny within 3 months from the date of communication of this order and the controller of examination would communicate the result and sent the revised mark sheet after completion of the aforementioned process to the petitioner through registered post with A.D. within 3 weeks thereafter. It is hopefully expected that the university will fix up a time limit or publication of the scrutiny results in future for the examinees. The university authorities will send the amount mentioned as cost to the petitioner through an account payee bank draft in the name of the petitioner drawn on a Nationalised Bank and send it through registered post to the petitioner within the time specified above. The controller of examination will also communicate the revised results of the petitioner through registered post to the petitioner and, such exercise is to be completed within a period of 3 months as mentioned above. 3) The petitioner will also be at liberty to file appropriate proceeding for damage and compensation against the University of Calcutta and its authorities in appropriate forum if he is so advised.” Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharya, learned counsel for the University, has placed before us the entire judgment and order under appeal and was of the opinion that firstly the order passed by the learned Single Judge imposing cost and direction for initiation of civil proceeding cannot be made tenable. He submitted this on the strength of a Notification (page 37 of the Paper Book) whereby the University was authorized to destroy the answer scripts after retaining them for beyond a period of six months. As such, since the prayer for scrutiny having been made beyond the period of time they had no obligation to retain the scripts. Furthermore, by the same analogy the direction given in Item No.1 (supra) cannot also be applicable against the University authorities on account of the fact that it has been a practice even before the said Notification came into existence that the authorities do not retain answer scripts of various examinations which they conducted for more than six months in their custody. Outlining the entire case of the University in this regard, Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharya has submitted that judicial notice should be taken of the fact that the University conducts so many examinations where lacs and lacs of examinees are involved. In the event they have to retain answer scripts of all the papers for which candidates have sat for, then it would result in mammoth situation and as such, for practicable solution a certain cut off date should be fixed so that candidates, if they so desire, can seek for review and scrutiny. Beyond that period, according to Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharya, it would not be possible to trace out the papers as the same are destroyed in terms of the Rules. Furthermore, he was of the opinion that direction by the learned Single Judge was not warranted in the fact situation of the present case since it cannot be said that the answer scripts were lost as prayer for review was made beyond the stipulated period and on the premises that the answer scripts not being produced, even taken for granted have been lost, cannot be substantiated and the direction for initiation of civil proceeding and awarding cost are not warranted in the facts and circumstances of the present case. Shri Sitaram Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner/Respondent, has opposed the submissions of Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharya. According to Shri Sitaram Bhattacharyya, the case of the Writ Petitioner/Respondent was quite different. Shri Sitaram Bhattacharyya, learned counsel for the Writ Petitioner/Respondent, has opposed the submissions of Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharya. According to Shri Sitaram Bhattacharyya, the case of the Writ Petitioner/Respondent was quite different. After having been unsuccessful in the examination (he has placed the mark sheet at page 19 of the Paper Book), the Writ Petitioner/Respondent prayed for review of the same and since the University authorities could not produce the answer scripts or make it available for review, necessarily it persuaded the learned Judge to pass direction for which no interference in this appeal would be necessitated. He further submitted that awarding of marks not being proper, it is necessary that the scripts be traced out and proper assessment be made. In Reply, Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharyya has submitted by inviting our attention to page 61 of the Paper Book to show that at the initial stage due to change of the panel, the case of the University was not properly represented, which, if at all, resulted in the situation that has surfaced through the order under appeal. After having heard Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharya for the Appellants and Shri Sitaram Bhattacharyya for the Writ Petitioner/Respondent, we feel that very easy and effective solution would be at hand in the event if we do not proceed in the direction as have been shown before us by virtue of the judgment and order under appeal. In the event we take a practicable solution of the issue, we feel none of the situations that has bubbled up through the order of the learned Single Judge needs be addressed. The Writ Petitioner/Respondent is a school teacher who had appeared for his M.A. Examination in English as a private candidate way back in 1990. Valuable 22 years have passed in the meantime. A golden period of his life has been spent in this litigation. We feel that a way-out must be sorted by us as a court of equity. The Writ Petitioner/Respondent is a school teacher who had appeared for his M.A. Examination in English as a private candidate way back in 1990. Valuable 22 years have passed in the meantime. A golden period of his life has been spent in this litigation. We feel that a way-out must be sorted by us as a court of equity. While upholding the objections and the ground in support of the appeal being sustainable as shown by Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharya and we would hold that the University authorities under no circumstance can be held responsible for the issue with regard to the non-availability of the answer scripts by virtue of the Circular (page 37 of the Paper Book), yet we find that direction of the learned Single Judge with regard to imposition of cost of Rs.20,000/- is also not warranted. After all, it would be money from the public exchequer. That apart, initiation of a civil suit was not also proper in the fact situation of the instant case since under the Rules University authorities are not bound to maintain answer scripts beyond the statutory period as per their convention. Accordingly, we would set aside both the directions passed by the learned Single Judge being Directions No. 1 and 3. Now, the question would remain with regard to the direction no.2, “the Appellant would try to find out the answer scripts for the purpose of review”. We feel we need not proceed any further in this regard as Shri Biswaroop Bhattacharyya has very correctly pointed out the said Notification (page 37 of the Paper Book). The issue now should be treated as closed chapter. While we would allow the Appeal by accepting the arguments of Shri Biswaroop Bhatacharyya, yet as court of equity we feel fate of the poor Writ-Petitioner/Respondent who has pursued justice like a teasing mirror for all these 22 years, it would be just justice that we would direct the University authorities to accord average marks and declare him passed in M.A. English Examination for the year 1989 held in July, 1990. Certificate of M.A. Examination and revised mark sheet would be made available to the Writ- Petitioner/Respondent within four weeks from the date of communication of this order. The Appeal, thus, stands allowed. The parties will bear their own costs.