JUDGMENT
Pradipta Ray, J.
1. The petitioner appeared in the Post Graduate Part-II Examination in Economics held in the month of May, 1995. From the mark-sheet sent to him, it appeared that although in Papers–V, VI and VII he obtained marks 60, 57 and S8 respectively in Paper VIII he was awarded only 17 marks.
2. Being aggrieved the petitioner applied before the University for verification of the marks of said Paper-VIII. By letter dated March 7, 1996 the Controller of Examinations of UtKal University informed him that the addition of marks in the said Paper-VIII was checked and found correct. Being aggrieved, the petitioner has filed the present writ application praying for production of the Examination Paper of said Economics Paper VIII and for a direction upon the opposite parties to recheck and revalue the same.
3. In pursuance of our order dated March 27, 1996 the answer script of the said Economics Paper VIII has been produced in Court. It appears from the answer script that the petitioner has been awarded 8 marks for his answer to question No. 1, 2 marks for answer No. 2, zero for answer No. 3, 5 marks for answer No. 4 and 2 marks for answer No. 5. It has beers recorded at several places by the Examiner that the answers are irrelevant. No mark has been awarded for the answer in question No. 3 on the similar ground that the answer is irrelevant.
4. It appears that the petitioner has answered the question given in Section It as per 1995 syllabus in Group-ll (International Monetary Management). It has been submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the examiner committed a mistake fn proceeding on the basis that the petitioner has answered questions of Section III as per 1995 syllabus although he answered the question of Section III as par 1995 syllabus. The said mistake, according to the teamed counsel has vitiated awarding of marks to petitioner’s answers.
5. It appears that the question No, 3 of Section II of Group ‘E’ is a question about the effects of collapse of Gold Standard. The answer to said question No. 3 prima facie deals with the subject of Gold Standard. Going through the said answer it appears to us that award of ‘0’ (zero) mark against that answer perhaps needs reconsideration. We are not experts in the field of Economics and accordingly it is not possible for us to determine whether the answer given was really irrelevant to the question No. 3 of said Section II of Group-‘E’. ‘However, in view of the fact that almost all the aswers have been treated to be irrelevant party or wholly by the Examiner the apprehension of mistake cannot be ruled out as absolutely without basis. But at the same time it is not possible for us to come to any definite conclusion. Considering the fact that the future of a student is at stake and that he has secured fairly good marks in all other papers, we think it fit arid proper to direct the University to send the petitioner’s answer script of Paper VIII in Economics to the Head Examiner of Economics to verify whether the answers given by the petitioner were really irrelevant or marks as awarded are correct or not keeping in mind that the petitioner has answered the questions of Section II of Group E as per 1995 syllabus. Such reconsideration is to be completed and the result thereof is to be communicated to the petitioner within one month from the date of receipt of this order.
6. The writ application is disposed of with the above directions. No costs.
D.M. Patnaik, J.
I agree.