JUDGMENT

S. PANDA, J.

The petitioner, who is a student of IMT Pharmacy College, Puri, challenges the action of the opposite parties in improperly evaluating the marks in respect of question Nos.1 (d), 3(b), and 8(A) and (8) in the subject of Drugs Store and Business Management.

2. It appears from the assertions made in the writ petition that the petitioner has completed Diploma in Pharmacy and has secured more .than 70% of marks in 1st year and also secured good marks in 2nd year in other subjects of the said course. However, in Drugs Store and Business Management subject irregular procedure has been adopted by the opposite parties in awarding marks and evaluating the answer scripts. He has obtained the xerox copy of the answer script of the aforesaid subject under R.T.I. Act and he has appeared the examination in the said subject as back paper, the result of which has been published on 23.3.2012. In the subject, he had secured 18 marks only whereas in the College internal assessment examination he has secured 19 marks, which was sent by the college and in toto, he secured 37 marks, though qualifying mark is 40.

3. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner submitted that some of the questions set up in the said subject are out of course and syllabus and he specifically has raised his objection, particularly with regard to question Nos.1 (d), 2(b) and 8(A) & (B) as ambiguous and in view of that, the petitioner was entitled to more marks. He further submitted that if correct marks would have been awarded to the questions he has attempted, as per the principle and practice followed by the Council of Secondary Education and other Bodies regarding evaluation of answer papers, the petitioner would not have awarded 0' mark and thus such action of the opposite parties is illegal, arbitrary and liable to be interfered with. He has also further submitted that due to the negligence on the part of the authorities in not awarding proper marks by adopting improper evaluation procedure, the petitioner has been deprived of taking admission in B. Pharma Course (lateral entry) though he has qualified and got rank in the Entrance Examination, 2011-2012.

4. A counter affidavit has been filed by the opposite party No.1 denying the averments made by the petitioner in the writ petition in which it has been stated that question No.1 (d) was not out of course, rather the said question belongs to Chapter 'Inventory Control', which is within the syllabus of Drug Store and Business Management subject. Similarly" question No.3 (b) comes under the subject 'Cash Book', which was also prescribed in the syllabus and question No.8 (a) and 8(b) are evaluated by qualified and experienced examiner. So, there is no question of incorrect evaluation of the answer scripts, rather the petitioner's answers were not found to be satisfactory. An additional counter affidavit has also been filed by the opposite party No.1 on 8.8.2012 in which it has been stated that in question No.1 (d) i.e. "lead time" 'as stated comes under "Inventory Control". It is part of the syllabus "Drug Store and Business Management". Question No. 3(b) of "Bank Reconciliation Statement and its Utility", is integrally connected with "Cash Book".

5. A rejoinder affidavit has been filed by the petitioner after the additional affidavit was filed by the opposite party No.1. In course of argument, learned counsel for the petitioner has only confined his submission to question No. 3(b), i.e. Bank Reconciliation Statement and its Utility and submitted that the said question was out of syllabus and a candidate, who appeared the examination is not supposed to answer that question, as he/she has to define regarding Bank Reconciliation Statement and its Utility.

6. Learned counsel appearing for the opposite party No.1 filed further affidavit on 14th August, 2012 in Court to clarify the position. It was stated that Pharmacy Council of India in exercise of its power in terms of Education Regulation, 1991 prescribe