Disposed

Pallabi Das v. Tripura University and Ors.

Tripura HC8 Jun 2017WP(C)/662/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this petition by a medical student challenging university examination evaluations and fees, the Court dismissed allegations as unfounded. The Court directed the petitioner to apply for answer script inspection within 15 days, clarifying that there is no inherent right to review absent a specific system, but granting relief based on the notification terms.

What did the court decide?

The petitioner directed to apply for inspection of answer scripts within 15 days; the University to notify charges and inspection date.

Pallabi Das Vs Tripura University and Ors. — Education and Admissions | Tripura HC (2017)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF TRIPURA AGARTALA

¶2

W.P.(C) NO.662 OF 2016

¶3

Smt. Pallabi Das, daughter of Sri Pradip Lal Das, resident of Pabia Chara, P.O. & P.S. Kumarghat, District : Unakoti Tripura

¶4

………… Petitioner

¶5

– Vs –

¶6

1. Tripura University (A Central University), to be represented by its Registrar, Suryamaninagar, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799130

¶7

2. Tripura Medical College & Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Teaching Hospital, to be represented by its Principal, Hapania, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799014

¶8

3. Society for Tripura Medical College & Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Teaching Hospital, to be represented by its Chairman, Hapania, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799014

¶9

………… Principal-Respondents

¶10

4. The State of Tripura, to be represented by the Principal Secretary to the Department of Health & Family Welfare, Government of Tripura, Secretariat Building, New Capital Complex, P.O. New Capital Complex, Agartala, West Tripura, PIN : 799010

¶11

………… Proforma-Respondents

¶12

B E F O R E

¶13

THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE S. TALAPATRA

¶14

For the petitioner : Mr. N. Das, Advocate For the respondent No.1 : Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, Senior Advocate Ms. B. Chakraborty, Advocate For the respondent Nos. 2 to 4 : Mr. T. Debbarma, Advocate

¶15

Page 1 of 6

¶16

W.P.(C) No.662 Of 2016

¶17

JUDGMENT & ORDER (ORAL)

¶18

Heard Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel assisted by Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 and Mr. T. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents No.2, 3 and 4.

¶19

02. The petitioner who is a student of MBBS course had cleared the first professional MBBS Examination according to her after 5 (five) attempts and thereafter she had appeared for the Second Professional MBBS Examination conducted by the Tripura University, the respondent No.1 not only once but she appeared thrice and lastly in the year 2015. After lapse of a year from the day of publication of the result of the said examination, the petitioner has approached this court. The petitioner has made serious allegations against the respondent No.2, the Tripura Medical College & Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Teaching Hospital. The petitioner appeared in the said examination even after questioning the role of the respondent No.1 in respect of evaluation of answer scripts and preparation and issuance of mark-sheets for the MBBS examinations. According to the petitioner the respondent No.1 failed to observe the regulations of examination. That apart, she made allegations against the respondents No.2 and 3 for charging

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

W.P.(C) No.662 Of 2016

¶22

the exorbitant fees. The respondent No.3, the Society which runs the respondent No.2, Medical College has been alleged of turning the said medical college into a commercial venture without taking responsibility of augmenting the standard focusing on a curricular activities and removing deficiencies.

¶23

03. The petitioner has gone to the extent that she has averred in para-26 of the writ petition as under:

¶24

“Thus Role of the Respondent No.1 in the matter of Respondent No.2 & 3 and evaluation of answer scripts, issue of marks sheets as well as issue of M B B S qualification are doubtful to the mind of the petitioner and her father and also contrary to the all rules and regulations as well as actual Role required to be done by the Respondent No.1 and as such petitioner and her father are in the firm opinion that the said Respondent No.2 and its so called society, Respondent No.3 running the said college as a commercial institution to say business for earning and taking the money shares of profit legal and illegal by the persons having vested interest, displaying the names Tripura Medical College and its so called Society.”

¶25

These allegations are not only sweeping and unrelated to the controversy but also without any foundation and as such this court does not attach any importance to such unfounded allegations against the University and the said Medical College.

¶26

04. A litigant should know his/her limit and responsibility in respect of averments. The court cannot allow a litigant to pull down the credential of a University and or College without any foundation of records. In future, the petitioner shall be cautious. His or her apprehension cannot be the basis for the same. Considering her tender age this court has not taken any stern action. However, it appears that the petitioner had applied for review of her evaluated answer sheets. But admittedly there is no

¶27

Page 3 of 6

¶28

W.P.(C) No.662 Of 2016

¶29

system of review, prevalent in the University. Therefore, if no response was given in respect of her appreciation for review, it cannot be the basis for inferring adversely against the universityrespondent No.1, even though the rule of prudence demands that the university apprised the petitioner the position on terms of the rules.

¶30

05. Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, bringing notice of this court to the notification under No.F.TU/REG/UG/03/07(Vol-1) dated 01.12.2011 [Annexure-A to the reply filed by the respondents No.2 and 3] has contended that even those respondent-authorities did not inform the petitioner of the said notification which provided her a right of inspection of the answer scripts following the terms and condition as laid down therein. It is not much relevant whether the respondents No.2 and 3 had apprised of existence of such system as reflected in the notification dated 01.12.2011 inasmuch as it is apparent from the said notification dated 01.12.2011 that the application for inspection of the answer scripts can be made within 30(thirty) days from the date of publication of the result and the inspection will be allowed within 30(thirty) days from the date of acceptance of the request. It is also admitted that the petitioner could not apply for inspection within 30(thirty) days from the date of publication of the result as she was not aware.

¶31

06. Mr. S.M. Chakraborty, learned senior counsel appearing for the respondent No.1 has categorically stated that the petitioner is totally unsure what actually she seeks by way of

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

W.P.(C) No.662 Of 2016

¶34

relief from this court. He has seriously observed that by this way, the process of the court should not be allowed to be abused.

¶35

07. From the writ petition, it appears that the petitioner wanted the review for the subjects viz., (i) Pathology, (ii) Forensic Medicine and (iii) Pharmacology. Mr. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner would like to inspect all the subjects for the Second Professional Examination, 2015.

¶36

08. Having appreciated the submission made by the learned counsel for the parties and keeping due regard to the context of this case, this court is of the view that the writ petition can be disposed of with the following direction:

¶37

(i) The petitioner shall file the application to the Registrar, Tripura Central University through the Principal, Tripura Medical College and Dr. B. R. Ambedkar Teaching Hospital for inspection in terms of the notification dated 01.12.2011 within a period of 15 (fifteen) days from the day when a copy of this order shall be made available to her.

¶38

(ii) On receipt of such application, the Universityrespondent shall notify the amount of charge to be paid by the petitioner with the date within which such charge shall be paid and thereafter the date of inspection shall be notified.

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

W.P.(C) No.662 Of 2016

¶41

(iii) The petitioner shall inspect the papers in presence of an Officer of the University and the petitioner shall not mutilate or deface any of the answer scripts. If any attempt is located, the Officer who would be deputed by Tripura University shall be entitled to take the appropriate action against the petitioner.

¶42

(iv) The petitioner may at the time of inspection be permitted to be accompanied by a person of her choice, but the said person also shall be governed by the terms and conditions of inspection as laid above.

¶43

09. Accordingly it is ordered. But the judgment and order shall not create any precedent for future.

¶44

A copy of this order be supplied to Mr. N. Das, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner as well as to Ms. B. Chakraborty, learned counsel and Mr. T. Debbarma, learned counsel appearing for the respondents.

¶45

No order as to costs.

JUDGE

Moumita

Page 6 of 6

W.P.(C) No.662 Of 2016

Pallabi Das v. Tripura University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Pallabi Das v. Tripura University and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

State Of Tripura And 2 Ors. Vs Gopal Ch. Das And Another

Dipak Bhattacharjee Vs F.C.I and Ors.

Tapan Das Vs the State of Tripura and Ors.

Ramaprasad Das Vs State of Tripura and 3 Ors.

Ajit Kr. Sen and Anr. Vs The Executive Engineer, South Division-111.

The State of Tripura and Anr. Vs Samsur Nahar Begum and Ors.