2103 IN THE HIGH COURT AT CALCUTTA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

2025 APPELLATE SIDE FRIDAY FMA 1026 of 2022 Court : 08 Item : DL-07 WITH Matter : FMA Status : DO CAN 1 of 2022 Bench ID : 266305 Transcriber : NANDY CAN 2 of 2022 CAN 3 of 2024 CAN 4 of 2024 RAIHAN UL HAQUE Vs.

THE STATE OF WEST BENGAL & ORS.

MR. KALYAN BANDOPADHYAY, SR. ADVOCATE MS. SUMITA SHAW, ADVOCATE MR. NILENDU BHATTACHARYA, ADVOCATE MR. SOUMEN CHATTERJEE, ADVOCATE ……for the Appellant MR. ACHINTYA KUMAR BHATTACHARYA, ADVOCATE MR. MAHABOOB AHMED, ADVOCATE ……for the University of Burdwan MR. SWAPAN KUMAR DATTA, SR. ADVOCATE MR. RAJAT DATTA, ADVOCATE ……for the State

1. The dispute pertains to the registration of the students with the University. The students were admitted by the College having sanctioned seat of 40 students but due to some omission and or mistake committed by the college, the names of only 12 students were sent to the University for registration. Subsequently after detecting such omission, the 28 number of students who were admitted, their names were also sent for registration.

2. It is undeniable that the aforesaid 28 students were permitted to sit in the second semester examination, but after detecting such defects, they were not permitted to sit in the third semester examination. Ultimately, the matter reached to this Court at the behest of the College for redressal of the grievance.

3. According to them, there was no incongruity and/or illegality in admitting the aforesaid 28 students The interim order was passed at the time of admission of the writ-petition directing the University to permit those 28 students to sit in the third semester examination which was duly complied with by the University. Subsequently, the writ-petition was dismissed and the said order is assailed in the instant appeal.

4. At the time of entertaining the instant appeal, the examination for the fourth semester was going to be held and the concern was raised in this regard, obviously, taking into account the plight of those students who are pursuing the course and qualified in first and second semester examination. The Appellate Court passed an interim order permitting them to sit in the fourth semester examination and the answer- scripts of those candidates was directed to be kept in a sealed cover.

5. On the last occasion when the matter appeared, the Division Bench directed evaluation of those answer- scripts and be produced in a sealed cover which, in fact, has been done.

6. The pith and substance of the entire episode leads to an apparent position that the aforesaid 28 candidates have been permitted to sit in third and fourth semester, may be by an interim order, passed by this Court and the evaluation of those answer-scripts have also been done.

7. According to Mr. Kalyan Bandopadhyay, learned senior Advocate appearing for the appellants, the aforesaid 28 candidates were admitted during the pandemic through an offline mode though the admission is required to be made through online mode and, therefore, such discrepancy and/or irregularity is not curable and flexible in nature and the University has to take a pragmatic view in this regard keeping in mind the academic future of the students pursuing such degree courses.

8. Mr. Bandopadhyay, learned Senior Advocate for the appellants further submits that those 28 candidates were included in the merit list and was not admitted in gross violation of the Rules and Norms and, therefore, the procedural lapses cannot be used as tyrant but as subservient to justice.

9. Mr. Achintya Kumar Banerjee, learned Advocate, submits that the answer-scripts were brought to the Court but for some reason or other the matter could not be taken and in terms of the last order passed in the instant appeal, the sealed cover have been sent back to the University for the purpose of safety and security of the said answer-scripts.

10. Mr. Banerjee, in his usual fairness submits that in a recent judgment rendered by the Apex Court in S.L.P.(C) Nos. 4361-4