Research › Search › Judgment

Calcutta High Court · body

2017 DIGILAW 674 (CAL)

Annapurna Saha v. Rabindra Bharati University

2017-08-09

MIR DARA SHEKO, RAKESH TIWARI

body2017
JUDGMENT : RAKESH TIWARI, J. 1. Heard learned Counsel for the parties and perused the records. The appellant is aggrieved by the order dated 11.11.2016 passed by learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 23481(W) of 2016 (Annapurna Saha vs. Rabindra Bharati University & Ors.). 2. Heard learned Counsel for the parties at length and perused the orders passed by this Court in the previous litigations right from 2011. 3. Admittedly, the appellant had failed in three papers namely, (i) Environmental Laws and Regulations, (ii) Sustainable Development and (iii) Environmental Management in M.A. Part-II Examination, 2011. She had been approaching the Court for an order in her favour and also had approached under Right to Information Act before the University for showing her the answer scripts of the aforesaid papers. 4. She also moved application to the University for review of her answer scripts of aforesaid papers. In the revaluation the appellant got even lessor marks than the marks she had obtained in the answer scripts of the main examination. 5. The appellant thereafter approached the Court by filing a writ petition being W.P. No. 5368(W) of 2013. It is also revealed from the records that under the order of the Court dated 28.2.2013 the Court directed the respondents to supply the petitioner with a copy of the answers scripts as asked for and that the answer scripts are retained for a period of one year from the date of relevant examination. 6. It has also come on record that the answer scripts which the appellant had requested for were not available before the University when she had filed the writ petition being W.P. 2348KW of 2016 in which the following order was passed:-- "............ ............ ............ ............" The petitioner seeks implementation of an order dated February 28, 2013 passed in W.P. No. 5368(W) of 2013. The learned advocate for the petitioner submits that, the University authorities were directed to supply the petitioner with a copy of the answer scripts as asked for upon payment of requisite fees within a period of four weeks from the date of making of payment of the requisite fees. The learned advocate for the petitioner refers to section 7(3) of the Right to Information Act and submits that, it is obligatory on the part of the University authorities to inform the petitioner as to the quantum of fees to be paid. The learned advocate for the petitioner refers to section 7(3) of the Right to Information Act and submits that, it is obligatory on the part of the University authorities to inform the petitioner as to the quantum of fees to be paid. The University authorities not having intimated such quantum, the time to make such payment of the requisite fees has not commenced and therefore, the petitioner is entitled to have the order dated February 28, 2013 enforced. The learned advocate for the University authorities submits that, the order dated February 28, 2013 had required the petitioner to put in the requisite fees. The petitioner not having deposited the requisite fees, at this stage after lapse of more than three years, it is not possible to make over the answer scripts to the petitioner. He submits that the answer scripts are preserved for a period of one year from the date of examination. I have considered the rival contentions of the parties and the materials made available on record. By the order dated February 28, 2013 the writ petition filed by the petitioner being W.P. 5368(W) of 2013 was disposed of with the following directions: 'That the respondents particularly the respondent No. 4 shall supply the petitioner with a copy of the answers scripts as asked for by the writ petitioner upon payment of requisite fees within a period of four weeks from the date of making payment of the requisite fees'. No evidence has been furnished in the writ petition to substantiate that the petitioner had put in the requisite fees in terms of such order. The averments in the writ petition do not specify the dates on which the petitioner claims to have made the attempts to deposit the requisite fees. The petitioner has not pleaded that, he was not aware of the requisite fees payable. Contrary, the petitioner has claimed in the writ petition that, his repeated attempts to deposit the requisite fees were thwarted by the authorities. Such averments in the writ petition facilitate an inference that, the petitioner was well aware of the quantum payable as fees. Therefore, the question of the University informing the petitioner about the requisite fees after the order dated February 28, 2013 does not arise. The order is of 2013. The petitioner has not deposited the requisite fees. Such averments in the writ petition facilitate an inference that, the petitioner was well aware of the quantum payable as fees. Therefore, the question of the University informing the petitioner about the requisite fees after the order dated February 28, 2013 does not arise. The order is of 2013. The petitioner has not deposited the requisite fees. The University claims that the answer scripts are preserved for a period of one year. A period in excess of three years has elapsed since passing of the order. The provisions of section 7(3) of the Right to Information Act in the facts of this case are not attracted particularly in view of the direction of this Court. The order dated February 28, 2013 lays down the methodology of receiving the answer scripts. The petitioner not having acted in terms of such order, it would not be appropriate to grant any relief as prayed for by the petitioner at this belated stage. W.P. No. 23481(W) of 2016 is dismissed without any order as to costs." 7. It can safely be said that the answer scripts having been destroyed after having been preserved for one year was in the knowledge of the petitioner and the Court when the aforesaid order was passed. 8. That the appellant appears not to be properly advised and therefore she time and again continued to approach the Court. The appellant has also lost about six years time as the litigation is still continuing now only for the purpose of production of her answer scripts of 2011 examination papers, which appear to have already been destroyed as also noticed by the Court in the aforesaid order. 9. In these circumstances of the case, we think that it would be better for the appellant to approach the University to appear in the next examination for the aforementioned subjects in which she had failed in the IInd semester examination, 2011. We explain the views of the Court to the candidate/appellant who is present before this Court. Though we are aware of the fact that a candidate should normally not be permitted to appear in the examination after so many years but the University does grant a second chance to the candidates who fail in the particular examination. 10. We explain the views of the Court to the candidate/appellant who is present before this Court. Though we are aware of the fact that a candidate should normally not be permitted to appear in the examination after so many years but the University does grant a second chance to the candidates who fail in the particular examination. 10. Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case particularly right of education to a girl child, we in these special circumstances have made a request to the University concerned to permit the appellant to appear in the next examination which is being held. 11. Learned Counsel for the University on his part has been very fair and has assured the Court that the petitioner/appellant was not properly advised, the University will ensure all assistance is provided to her for appearing in the next examination in the aforesaid three papers in order to complete her course. 12. We therefore direct that appellant shall communicate the University within a period of ten days from date, certified copy of this order. Communication shall also be made by the learned Counsel for the University to the Vice-Chancellor so that the University is in the know of the thing. The University in turn shall inform the appellant in writing about the last date of filling up of the form, which may be filled up and submitted by the candidate to the University. On such submission of the form by the appellant the University shall permit the appellant to appear in the next examination. 13. Since this order has been passed in certain circumstances as stated above it will not be a precedent in any other matter. 14. The appeal along with application is accordingly disposed of. Urgent Photostat copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on usual undertaking.