IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA

CONSTITUTIONAL WRIT JURISDICTION

Appellate Side

Present:

The Hon’ble Justice Ajay Kumar Gupta

WPA 8701 of 2007

Shri Rudra Prosad Giri

Versus

The Netaji Subhas Open University & Ors.

For the Petitioner : Mr. Shaunak Ghosh, Adv.

Ms. Paramita Mondal, Adv.

Mr. Suva Gayen, Adv.

For the University : Dr. Chapalesh Bandyopadhyay, Adv.

Ms. Gargy Basu, Adv.

Ms. Anandamayee Datta, Adv.

Heard on : 17.09.2025 Judgment on : 12.11.2025

Ajay Kumar Gupta, J:

1. This is the second round of litigation. Earlier, the petitioner had filed a writ petition being WP No. 27713 (W) of 2006.

FACTS OF THE CASE

2. The petitioner, being Enrolment No. S-200220180, took admission in BDP (B.Sc) course, at P.K. College Study Centre, Contai, District – Purba Medinipur, affiliated to Netaji Subhas Open University. After completion of the term, he appeared in the Examination from June 2003 in different subjects of his course till June 2005. He received the progress report of the Term Education Examination in June, 2005, which contained the marks from June, 2003 to June, 2005.

3. However, after verifying the said report, the petitioner found that in paper E-13, he has been shown to have obtained no marks, though the petitioner duly appeared for the Examination of the said paper in June, 2005. At the same time, in paper E-15, he has been shown to have obtained only 2 marks. The petitioner expected good marks in both papers.

4. The petitioner enquired about his marks when the Co-ordinator informed him that there may have some mistake in the computer. However, he was advised to appear in the examination for paper E-15 in December, 2005. Accordingly, he appeared in the examination. Thereafter, he received another progress report in which he noticed further discrepancies in paper E-1. Previously, it showed 33 marks in paper E-1, but in the December 2005 progress report, the same 33 marks were shown as 17+1. Additionally, the term and examination date were recorded incorrectly.

5. It is further the case of the petitioner that in paper E-2, he had obtained 29 marks, but the progress report of December 2005 reflected 33 marks. Due to these discrepancies, he addressed a letter to the Vice-Chancellor/respondent no. 2 vide letter dated 03.08.2006. Upon receipt of the letter, the Controller of Examination/respondent no. 3 vide letter dated 13.08.2006, informed the petitioner that his marksheet had been corrected and despatched to the Study Centre.

6. From the said corrected report, the Petitioner observed that the discrepancy of marks in paper E-1 and E-2 as well as the date of Term End Examination had been rectified. However, paper E-13 still showed no marks, and in paper E-15, the marks had changed from 2 to 10. He subsequently informed the respondents about these contradictions, discrepancies and mistakes in the progress report vide letter dated 04.09.2006. As no remedial action was taken, the Petitioner filed the first writ petition.

7. After hearing the parties, the writ petition was disposed of by Hon’ble Justice Debasish Kar Gupta vide an order dated 29.01.2007. The Court directed the Vice-Chancellor/respondent no. 2 to consider the grievances of the petitioner, particularly the representation dated 4th September, 2006 within four weeks from the date of communication of the order, and to pass a reasoned order, communicating the same within a week from the date of such decision.

8. The respondent no. 2, the Vice-Chancellor, Netaji Subhas Open University considered the representation and decided the fate of the petitioner in the following manner:

“AND WHEREAS THE CANDIDATE was given an opportunity of being heard; Now therefore it is ordered that the communication of the Controller of Examination dated 13.08.2006 and 20.10.2006 confirming that the candidate obtained in E-13-0, E-15-10 and it is confirmed that the date of examinations in E- 14 will be Dec-04 instead of June-05 and no injustice has been meted to him.

He can avail chances during the validity of Registrat