Dismissed

Smt. Ruma Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Gauhati HC15 Mar 2023WP(C)/4132/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The court dismissed a writ petition challenging the Combined Entrance Examination 2017 results. It found the petitioner had falsely projected her son secured 156 marks against official records showing only 26 marks, constituting 'dirty hands' for relying on a fake mark sheet.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition is dismissed on the ground that no case has been made out on merit to entitle the petitioner to any relief.

Smt. Ruma Das Vs the State of Assam and Anr. — Education and Admissions | Gauhati HC (2023)

¶1

Page No.# 1/3

¶2

GAHC010030432017

¶3

THE GAUHATI HIGH COURT (HIGH COURT OF ASSAM, NAGALAND, MIZORAM AND ARUNACHAL PRADESH)

¶4

Case No. : WP(C)/4132/2017

¶5

SMT. RUMA DAS

¶6

W/O KHANINDRA NATH DAS, R/O BELTALA, PS-BASHISTHA, DIST. KAMRUP, ASSAM

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF ASSAM and ANR.

¶9

REP. BY THE COMMISSIONER and SECRETARY TO THE GOVT. OF ASSAM, DEPTT. OF HIGHER EDUCATION, DISPUR, GUWAHATI-06

2:THE DIRECTOR

TECHNICAL EDUCATION

KAHILIPARA

GUWAHATI-1

Advocate for the Petitioner : MD.ARIF

¶15

Advocate for the Respondent : MR.K GOGOISC, Higher Education

¶16

Page No.# 2/3

¶17

BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE KALYAN RAI SURANA

¶18

ORDER

¶19

Date : 15.03.2023

¶20

None appears on call for the petitioner.

¶21

Mr.K.Gogoi, learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department has submitted that the son of the petitioner namely, Jaydeep Das was the candidate who had appeared in the CEE-2017 examination and it is projected that he had secured 156 marks out of 480 marks in the said Combined Entrance Examination. However, as per the departmental records, it is submitted that the son of the petitioner had attempted only 43 questions out of which correct answers were given for only 13 questions but for 30 wrong answers, one mark each was deducted and therefore, the aggregate marks of Jaydeep Das was 26, inclusive of additional 4 grace marks given to all candidates. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner had relied on a fake and manipulated mark sheet in this writ petition.

¶22

It is submitted by the learned standing counsel for the Higher Education Department that the said fact was noted by the Court in the order dated 26.07.2017 and since then, the learned counsel for the petitioner has defaulted in appearance when the matter was previously listed on 21.01.2019 and 21.03.2022.

¶23

Ordinarily, as the learned counsel for the petitioner is found absent on call on three consecutive days, the Court would have dismissed the matter for non-

¶24

Page No.# 3/3

¶25

prosecution. But in the present case in hand, the petitioner has approached this Court by filing this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and has falsely projected that the son of the petitioner, namely, Jaydeep Das had secured 156 marks by producing a fake Combined Entrance Examination, 2017 result. Hence the Court finds that the petitioner has approached this Court with dirty hands by producing and relying upon a manufactured and/or manipulated marks sheet, which is negated by the copy of downloaded mark sheet produced in the affidavit-in-opposition filed by the respondent No.2.

¶26

The Court, having prima facie being satisfied found that the son of the petitioner namely, Jaydeep Das has only secured 26 marks, inclusive of 4 grace marks on the basis of copy of the OMR answer sheet as well as the mark sheet produced by the respondent No.2, the present writ petition is dismissed on the ground that no case has been made out on merit to entitle the petitioner or to her son, Jaydeep Das to any relief whatsoever.

¶27

As the petitioner is unrepresented, the Court has refrained from passing orders for an appropriate enquiry/proceeding against the petitioner for producing fake/manipulated and/or manufactured result sheet.

¶28

JUDGE

¶29

Comparing Assistant

Smt. Ruma Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Smt. Ruma Das v. the State of Assam and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr. Bind Kumar Chauhan Vs the State of Assam and 6 Ors.

Sunita Kharikap Vs the State of Assam and 8 Ors.

Principal Secretary to the Government of Assam Vs All Assam Retired Officers Teachers and Employees Committee and 5 Ors.

Sunil Kumar Sah Vs the State of Assam

Chittaranjan Debnath and Anr. Vs the State of Assam and 3 Ors.

Ejajul Hussain Vs the State of Assam and 5 Ors.