The central legal point established in the judgment is that the University had the authority to revise the petitioner's results based on the marks secured in her answer scripts, as authorized by the relevant legal provisions.

Amitava Roy, J.

1. The Petitioner who had been declared to have passed the B.A. (Pt-III) final examination, 2008 conducted under the aegis of the Dibrugarh University (hereafter referred to as the 'University') by securing 1st class with major in Economics is now in a quandary being faced with the impugned corrigendum dated 13.12.2008 proclaiming her to have failed in the said examination. Being distraught and disenchanted by the indifference disposition of the University to her representations for necessary remedial intervention, she is before this Court for redress.

2. I have heard Mr. C. Baruah, Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. K. Agarwal, learned Counsel for the University.

3. The Petitioner's account of facts discloses that, she had been a regular student of Three Years (Arts) (1+1+1) Examination Course of the University and had appeared in the TDC Pt-III (Arts) Examination, 2008 (hereafter for short, also referred to as the 'Examination') from Manohari Devi Kanoi Girls College, Dibrugarh (for short, hereafter referred to as the 'College') with Roll 100 No. A-219. The results of the said examination declared by the University on 30.6.2008 disclosed her to have passed in 1st Class with major in Economics. According to the Petitioner, she thereafter appeared the Management Aptitude Test (MAT) conducted on 7.9.2008 and following her application for Masters Degree in Business Administration at Darwin School of Business, R.G. Baruah Road, Guwahati, was admitted in the said institute to pursue the aforementioned course. While the Petitioner was thus scrupulously attending her classes, she on 14.12.2008 could come to learn that her results in the TDC Part-II-III (Arts) Examination, 2008 so declared, had been unilaterally reversed by the University vide the impugned corrigendum dated 13.12.2008 issued by the Controller of Examinations, Dibrugarh University showing her to have failed. The Petitioner being utterly dismayed by the sudden turn of events, submitted a representation before the Controller of Examinations, Dibrugarh University on 15.12.2009 seeking to be apprised with the complaint occasioning the revision of her results, highlighting inter alia that the action taken without affording any opportunity of defence to her, was apparently in violation of the principles of natural justice. Though, the representation was received by the authority concerned, corrective steps were not taken impelling her to solicit judicial intervention. 4. The University in its affidavit affirmed by its Controller of Examinations while admitting that, at the first instance she was declared to have passed the examination by securing a 1st Class, on a scrutiny of her answer scripts in 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and 9th papers in Economics (Major), she was found to have secured the following marks:

The University, therefore, asserted that the Petitioner actually had failed in the 6th and 9th papers wherein she had secured only 28 and 26 out of 100 marks each and therefore, she had failed in the examination. It was maintained that the marks folio/mark sheets and tabulation-sheet which had been prepared on the basis of her answer scripts were tampered and forged in order to represent that the Petitioner had secured 1st Class in all the papers. The deponent elaborated that one Rubi Gogoi of Lakhimpur District had filed an application under the Right to Information Act, 2000 to be informed about the marks awarded to her in Anthropology Paper-III of TDC Pt-II (Arts) Examination, 2008, pursuant to which a preliminary scrutiny was made by the University in course of which it was detected that the Roll No. as well as Registration No. of the candidate on the front page of the answer script and the mark folios had been tampered with. This issue having been placed before the emergency meeting of the Examination Committee of the University convened on 22.7.08, it was resolved that a thorough enquiry be made by the Examination branch into this episode and