SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2014 Supreme(Gau) 441

IN THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (THE HIGH COURT OF ASSAM; NAGALAND; MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE & UJJAL BHUYAN, JJ.
DR. MRINMOY BHUYAN
VS
STATE OF ASSAM & 8 ORS
WA No.222 of 2014
Decided on: 23rd June, 2014

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared
For the appellants : Mr. D Das, Senior Adv. assisted by Mr. R Singha, Adv Mr. AC Borbora, Senior Adv assisted by Mrs. R Borbora, Adv
For the respondents: Mr. D. Saikia, Addl. AG,Assam assisted by B. Gogoi, SC, Health Mr. TJ Mahanta, Adv Mr. H Buragohain, Adv

Headnote:

Gauhati High Court Rules - Rule 2(3) - Entrance examination – Eligibility criteria - Admission - By impugned order, learned Single Judge, partly allowed one writ petition being WP(C) and issued a writ of certiorari against State and its authorities quashing second result declared by State on 14.3.2014 in relation to entrance examination held for admission in MDS Course (Assam) in Regional Dental College, Guwahati and further issued a mandamus directing concerned State authorities to give effect to first result declared in relation to aforesaid examination for giving admission and other ancillary benefits relating thereto to successful candidates as per their merit - It was also held that respondent No. 6 did not use any unfair means in examination while answering her answer script as complained by two writ petitioners against her - Held, No student would like to approach court for securing more marks because that is not the job of courts - If officials do their duties assigned in letter and spirit, there would be no need for any litigation between candidates and State - All instructions must be therefore circulated with clarity making known to the candidates - No error be committed while examining answer script - It is only then sanctity of examination would be maintained and students will repose faith in system - It is clear that we have decided issue arising in this case on basis of peculiar undisputed facts pleaded in petitions, stand taken by parties and instructions (Annexure- 4) governing the issue - It is now for State to decide whether they need to introduce any amendment in regulation in light of our observations and also keeping in view the regulations made by other Universities/Councils for conducting the examinations in future - Writ petitions dismissed.

ORDER (CAV)

(A.M. Sapre, CJ)

The decision rendered in this appeal (WA No.222/2014) shall also govern the disposal of the other connected appeal being WA No. 216 of 2014 because both appeals arise out of common order passed by the Single Judge (writ court) in two writ petitions arising out of one controversy between the same parties.

This is an intra-court appeal filed by the writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 2613/2014 and respondent No. 6 of WP(C) No. 1627 of 2014 under Rule 2(3) of Chapter V-A of the Gauhati High Court Rules against the order dated 28.05.2014 passed by the Single Judge in abovementioned writ petitions.

By impugned order, the learned Single Judge, partly allowed one writ petition being WP(C)No. 1627/2014 and issued a writ of certiorari against the State and its authorities quashing the second result declared by the State on 14.3.2014 in relation to the entrance examination held for admission in MDS Course (Assam) in the Regional Dental College, Guwahati and further issued a mandamus directing the concerned State authorities to give effect to the first result declared on 13.2.2014 in relation to the aforesaid examination for giving admission and other ancillary benefits relating thereto to the successful candidates as per their merit. It was also held that respondent No. 6 (Kriti Hazarika) did not use any unfair means in the examination while answering her answer script as complained by the two writ petitioners against her. As a result of the issuance of the writs and the aforementioned finding the connected Writ petition being WP(C) No. 2613/2014 was dismissed.

So the question which arises for consideration in these 2 appeals is whether learned Single Judge was justified in partly allowing WP(C) No. 1627/2014 by issuing writ of certiorari in quashing the second result of the entrance examination declared on 14.3.2014 for admission in MDS Course (Assam) in Regional Dental College, Guwahati and was further justified in issuing a mandamus against the State to give effect to the first result declared on 13.2.2014 for giving admission to candidates and lastly whether he was justified in holding that respondent No. 6 ( Kriti Hazarika) did not use any unfair means in the examination while answering her answer script?

In order to appreciate the issue involved in the appeals, it is necessary to state the relevant facts, which lie in a narrow compass.

An educational notice was issued (Annexure – A) by the Controller of Examination, Shrimanta Sankaradeva University of Health Sciences, Guwahati inviting applications from Dental Graduate students belonging to State of Assam for admission to the MDS Course (Assam quota) of Regional Dental College, Guwahati for the session 2014. Entrance test was to be held on 30.1.2014. In all, 56 candidates applied for the admission and appeared in the written test held on 30.1.2014. The results were declared on 13.2.2014. Three (3) candidates whose cases are subject matter of the two writ petitions out of which these two appeals arise secured marks in order of merit as under:

Sl. No. Name of the candidate Marks obtained

1. Jishnu Nath – (writ petitioner of WP(C) No. 1627/2014 and respondent no. 7 of WP(C) No. 2613.2014. 336

2. Kriti Hazarika - (respondent no. 6 of WP(C) No. 1627 and WP(C) No.2613/ 2014) 327

3. Mrinmoy Bhuyan – (writ petitioner of WP(C)No.2613/2014 and respondent no. 7 of WP(C)No.1627/2014 ) 325

On 15.2.2014, one candidate - Mrinmoy Bhuyan, who secured 325 marks, filed a RTI application (Annexure- 6) to the authorities demanding an information as to whether any kind of discrepancy or unfairness was noticed in the answer sheets of the candidate – Kriti Hazarika who secured 327 marks and Jishnu Nath who secured 336 marks and if so what kind of discrepancy and unfairness was noticed in their answer scripts?

On 17.2.2014, Mrinmoy Bhuyan and other candidates also filed an application (Annexure-7) to the Controller of Examination praying therein that revaluation of answer sheets of


































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top