Amod Kumar vs The Bihar University and Others

G.C. Bharuka, J.—The present writ application has been filed by the sole Petitioner for a direction to the Respondents to publish his result of B.Sc. Engineering First Year Examination, 1987.

The examination was held in 8 papers between the period, 7-12-1987 and 7-1-1988. As per the mark-sheet, which is Annexure-6, out of 8 papers the Petitioner admittedly failed in 7 papers. In the writ petition the Petitioner has based his relief on the basis of the modalities laid down by the Moderation Board wherein it was held that:

(i) Marks of all eight subjects were moderated to the maximum of 36 where deserved.

(ii) The answer books of the examinees, who have secured less than 10 marks in that theory full marks (70) were not considered fit for moderation.

Even applying the above said modality, the Petitioner can not be declared fit for being promoted to the Second Year course because in three papers, namely, Technical English, Mathematics and Chemistry his marks in written papers i.e. theory is less than 10 and in the remaining four papers for obtaining the pass marks he needs a grace of 40 marks whereas the maximum permissible grace was 36 marks only. As such the modalities laid down in Annexure ''A'' to the counter affidavit are of no help to the Petitioner.

Next contention of the Petitioner is that some students, situated similar to the Petitioner, have been declared promoted. To substantiate this part of the submission, learned Counsel for the Petitioner has referred to the mark-sheet, which is Annexure-7 to the Supplementary Affidavit.

Mr. P.N. Roy appearing for the University has submitted that because of some inadvertence or mistake some boys were declared promoted but subsequently that mistake was rectified and, as such, the students, who do not come within the modalities laid down in Annexure ''A'' to the counter affidavit, have been demoted.

If that be the situation, the Petitioner is not entitled to any relief on that count also.

Faced with the above situation, learned Counsel for the Petitioner does not propose to press this application and wants to withdraw the same. This application is, accordingly, dismissed as withdrawn. However, there shall be no order as to costs.