ORDER
S. B. SINHA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against an order dated 8-1-1993 passed by U. C. Banerjee, J. whereby and whereunder the writ application filed by the writ petitioner-appellant dismissed in limine. The fact of the matter lies m a very narrow compass.
2. The appellant appeared in Part II Examination of B.A. Hons. in the year 1988. According to the appellant, she did fairly well in the examination, but did not obtain marks accordingto her expectation. Inparagiaph 12 of the writ application, it was stated that she reasonably apprehends and/or has reason to believe that her answer scripts have not been properly looked into and examined. The appellant applied for review so far as answer scripts of 5th and 8th papers on 18-9-89 in the prescribed form. Upon scrutiny no change in her results was made. Howevr, later on the
petitioner was awarded 32 in place of 36 marks in one of the papers. The petitioner-appellant further drew the attention of the Hon’ble Minister. The matter was also taken up with the Hon’ble Chief Minister, whereafter the appellant made a representation on 28-7-92 before the Chancellor. By a letter dated 12th November, 1992, the Registrar, Calcutta University, apprised the Assistant Secretary to the Government of West Bengal to the following effect:–
“In this connection I am to inform you that Miss Gangopadhyay appeared at the B.A. Part II Examination 1989 in English Honours and got plucked. She then applied for re-examination of her 5th and 8th papers, results of which were also communicated to her in due course. Under the existing rules there is no scope of further examination of the said re-examined scripts.”
The appellant thereafter filed the aforementioned writ application which, as noticed hereinbefore, was dismissed in limine by the learned single Judge, inter alia, on the ground that the Rules of Review have been complied with.
3. Mr. Mukherjee, leained Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that keeping in view the change in. the academic atmosphere it is necessary for this Court to see the answer scripts and examine the answer papers so as to enable this-Court to ensure that no improper marking has been given to a candidate. In support of his aforementioned submission, the learned Counsel has heavily relied upon a decision of a learned single Judge of this Court in Tripura Sankar Chell v. University of Calcutta, reported in (1991) 2 Cal LJ 279. The learned Counsel further submits that as regards the objetive type of questions, this Court and the Supreme Court looked to the answer scripts itself and for the said purpose the learned Counsel referred lo the decisions and (1992) 96 Cal WN 1149.
4. Mr. Basu, learned Counsel appearing on behalf of the State of West Bengal and Mr. Ahmed, learned Counsel appearing on behalf
of the University, on the other hand submit that this Court cannot accept the role which is to be played by the University as no illegality has been committed by the University in its statutory functions and more particularly in a case, where no mala fide is alleged. The learned Counsel contends that the answer scripts must have been destroyed by now as the appellant appeared at 1989 examination. It was further submitted that this Court should not entertain a writ application which prima facie does not show that the respondents have acted mala fide or arbitrarily. An apprehension on the part of the petitioner-appellant alone cannot give rise to a cause of action for filing a writ application.
5. The question raised by Mr. Mukherjee to the effect that the attitude of the Court may change with the change in social circumstances is of some importance. Mr. Mukherjee may be right when he submits that academic atmosphere prevailing in University may not prevail now and from the newspaper reports appearing on 27th July, 1995 in the daily newspaper Bartaman, it appears that some number-sheets of Higher Secondary examination were found on road. Such being the posit ion, we are prima facie of the opinion that in a case where the Court finds that there exists a prima facie case for consideration of the answer papers being scrutinised by another expert exeicise of Court’s jurisdiction cannot be ruled out. We do not want to make any comments as regards Tripura Sankar Chell’s case (1991 (2) Cal LJ 279) (supra) as it is stated that the said matter is also pending in appeal so far as the right of the Court to grant compensation to the candidate is concerned. However, it appears that the fact of the said matter was absolutely different inasmuch as it was found as of fact that there had been omission to allot marks to three questions which the candidate had answered. In this case, on the other hand, we find that the Calcutta University has already exercised its right of review. In fact on such review, marks obtained by the appellant on 8th paper was reduced to 32 from 36. It, therefore, cannot be said that there has been no proper review of the answer scripts. In a given situation, we arc of the opinion that the Court may consider
that desirability of asking the University to produce the answer scripts so as to satisfy its conscience that the statements made in the writ application are correct and or to enable this Court to arrive at a finding that assessment of marks had not been done arbitrarily or there has been no omission on the part of the examiner to allot marks in relation to the question which has been answered by the candidate concerned. However, in the instant case we find that even the statements made in the writ application have not been verified. In this view of the matter alone, we are of the opinion that it is not necessary to consider the matter any further inasmuch as in that situation no credence can be given to the allegations made in the writ application.
6. For the reasons aforementioned no interference is called for with the impugned order. The appeal, is, therefore, dismissed, but there will be no order as to costs.
S.N. CHAKRABARTY, J.
7. I agree.
8. Appeal dismissed.