Amitava Bandyopadhyay vs The West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education & Ors.

Affidavit-of-service filed by the petitioner be kept on record.

Mr. Anjan Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that the petitioner''s son, namely, Aabesh Bandyopadhyay (in short, Aabesh) participated in the Higher Secondary Examination, 2017 (in short, the said examination) conducted by the West Bengal Council of Higher Secondary Education (in short, the said Council). He scored well in all the subjects except in the subjects of English and Chemistry. Upon obtaining the photocopies of the answer-scripts pertaining to the said subjects, he was surprised to note that the answers given by him in question nos. 1(a), 1 (c), 2(b), 2(c), 3(a) in the English paper have been illegally struck out by somebody else. The answers given by him in English Part-B paper have also not been marked. In support of such contention Mr. Bhattacharya has drawn the attention of this Court to the documents annexed at pages 25 to 41 of the writ petition.

Drawing the attention of this Court to the documents annexed at pages 42 to 64 of the writ petition, Mr. Bhattacharya submits that the answers given by Aabesh in the Chemistry paper have also not been properly marked and he had not been given appropriate marks and as such the Council should be directed to produce the original answer-scripts for perusal of this Court so that the illegalities perpetrated can be brought to light.

Per contra, Mr. Biswarup Bhattacharya, learned advocate appearing for the Council submits that the statements made in paragraphs 2 to 15 in the writ petition have not been affirmed as true to knowledge. It is unthinkable and unbelievable that an examiner will strike out the answers given by the student in a particular subject. The Council examiners do not bear any grudge against Aabesh. The allegations levelled in the writ petition are absolutely vague and as such, no interference is called for.

Aabesh applied for post publication scrutiny in respect of the English paper, as would be explicit from the document annexed at page 25. Upon such post publication scrutiny there was no change in marks. The marks noted in the first page of the English answer-script and in the first page of the Chemistry answer-script apparently tallies with the marks given by the examiner in the respective questions. The writ Court cannot sit in appeal over the assessment made by an expert body. The allegation that the answers given by Aabesh have been struck out by someone else does not stand supported with appropriate pleadings. It is also not acceptable that an examiner will struck out the answers given by the student in a particular subject. Such a disputed question of fact cannot be adjudicated by the writ Court.

Accordingly, this Court is unable to grant the relief, as prayed for by the petitioner and the writ petition is dismissed.

There shall, however, be no order as to costs.

Urgent photostat certified copy of this order be supplied to the parties on compliance of all formalities.