Calcutta High Court
WPA/15309/2026 of JIT SAMADDER Vs STATE OF WEST BENGAL AND ORS. on 29 July 2026
Court No.24 SD IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION WPA 15309 of 2026 Jit Samadder Vs. The State of West Bengal & Ors. Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey Mr. Tapan Ray … for the Petitioner. Mr. Badal Sing Mr. Tarun Kumar Poddar … for the State. Mr. A.K. Lahiri
S/L 7
29.07.2026
Court No.24
SD
IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA
CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION
WPA 15309 of 2026
Jit Samadder
Vs.
The State of West Bengal & Ors.
Mr. Tapas Kumar Dey
Mr. Tapan Ray
… for the Petitioner.
Mr. Badal Sing
Mr. Tarun Kumar Poddar
… for the State.
Mr. A.K. Lahiri
… for the Respondent No.5.
Dr. Madhusudan Saha Roy
Ms. Debangana Dey
Mr. Debanjan Chatterjee
… for the West Bengal State University.
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today be kept with the records.
2. The petitioner appeared in the 6th Semester B.A. Honours in English course conducted by the West Bengal State University.
3. The petitioner, being aggrieved by the marks awarded to him, sought for a re-examination of answer scripts. His answer scripts were re-examined and there has indeed been an increase in his marks. The petitioner is still not satisfied.
4. It has been submitted that the petitioner is a very meritorious candidate and he secured 1st Class grade all along. Due to five marks shortage, he is not in a position to get the 1st Class marks.
5. Prayer has been made to direct the University to show sympathy upon the petitioner so that he can be given the 1st class marks.
2
6. Upon hearing the submissions made on behalf of the petitioner and on perusal of the materials on record, it appears that indeed there has been an increase in the marks of the petitioner after the re- examination was conducted.
7. There is no provision in law for conducting further re-examination. The examinee must know that there is a limit to the prayers that may be made in Court.
8. Marks in an examination are always awarded on the basis of the merit of the candidate and on the correctness of the answers written by the candidate in the examination. Marks cannot be awarded to the candidate on sympathy.
9. Learned advocate for the petitioner has failed to produce any law or judicial precedent which permits awarding of marks to a candidate merely on sympathy.
10. In view of the above, no relief can be granted to the petitioner in the instant case.
11. The writ petition fails and is hereby dismissed.
12. Certified server copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties on compliance of all requisite formalities.
(Amrita Sinha, J.)