WP(C)/418/2013 of Miss Gargi Roy Vs Tripura University 3 Ors on 20 December 2013

Party Name : Miss Gargi Roy Vs Tripura University 3 Ors THE HONBLE MR JUSTICE U. B. SAHA

The instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner to issue writ of mandamus calling uponthe respondents to show cause as to why answer scripts of the petitioner should not becompared with the higher scoring answer scripts so that she gets marks not less than 55%in her M.A. examination. Heard Mr. C.S. Sinha, learned counsel for the petitioner as well asMr. P.K. Biswas, learned Assistant SG assisted by Mr. A. Roy, learned counsel for therespondents-Tripura University at this motion stage. Considering the nature of the prayerand as agreed to by the learned counsel for the parties, the instant writ petition is taken upfor final disposal at this motion state. The brief facts of the case are that the petitionerappeared in MA examination in English under the Tripura University and when the result ofthe said examination was published, she found that she got only 54.44% marks in MasterDegree in the aforesaid subject in the year 2010. Thereafter, being unsatisfied shesubmitted the writ petition No. W. P. (c) 30 of 2011 earlier before this Court which wasdisposed of directing the respondents- University to supply the copy of the answer scriptssought for by the petitioner, however, to be supplied after removing covering or otherwisesevering from the non-exempted part of the answer books, the information relating to theexaminers/co-ordinators/scrutinizers/head examiners or which may disclose their identitywith reference to signature or initials, which are exempted from disclosure under Section8(1)(g) of the said Act. Thereafter, the respondents-University authority supplied the saidorder. The petitioner again filed one application with the opinion of one of the seniorteachers of English of the State for comparison of the scores of the highest scoring scriptsin the said subject. Thereafter, again submitted another representation on 16.5.2012 to theController of Examination of Tripura University, but the same has not been replied by theauthority concerned. Hence, the writ petition. How and in what manner a paper will beexamined is the matter of the expert, not for the court. Assessment done by an examinercannot be re-appreciated by a court of law. Every individual examiner has his own way toexamine and assess the answer scripts. Thus, it would not be proper on the part of thiscourt to give any direction to the respondents-University as sought for by the petitioner asthis court is not sitting on an appeal against the assessment of the examiner who examinedthe answer paper. More so, the petitioner also did not mention under what Rule of theUniversity he is entitled to the benefits sought for. However, as the representation filed bythe petitioner on 16.5.2012 to the Controller of Examination is admittedly not replied asyet, it would be proper to direct the Controller of Examination of the Tripura University toinform the petitioner regarding the result of her representation within a period of ten days.Accordingly, it is ordered. With this, the instant writ petition is disposed of. No order as tocosts.