IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA LPA No.1015 of 2008 --------- JITENDRA KUMAR JYOTI, son of Sri Deo narain Chaudhary, resident of village and post office Shihpur, P.S. Gamharia, District – Madhepura ………Petitioner-Appellant Versus 1. B.N.Mandal University, through the Vice Chancellor, Lalunagar, Madhepura 2. The Vice-Chancellor, B.N. Mandal University, Lalunagar, Madhepura 3. The Examination Controller, B.N. Mandal University, Lalunagar, Madhepura 4. The Registrar, B.N. Mandal University, Lalunagar, Madhepura 5. The Principal, M.L.T. College, Saharsa ……..Respondents- Respondents ----------- For the Appellant : M/s. Upendra Prasad, Veena Kumari Jaiswal and Chandrakala Jaiswal, Advocates For the Respondents : Mr. Hemendra Pd. Singh, Advocate -------- 4/ 02.03.2009 Writ petitioner-appellant, aggrieved by order dated 26.11.2008, passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.J.C. No. 5379 of 2008 dismissing the writ application, has preferred this appeal under Clause X of the Letter Patent. Allegation of the writ petitioner appellant is that while evaluating the answer sheet, he was given higher marks but at the first page of it, less marks have been shown. Taking note of the aforesaid fact, by order dated 16.1.2009, we had directed the respondent- University to produce the appellant’s answer sheet of 5th and 6th papers of Zoology. Answer sheets have been produced which show that marks in both the papers have been tampered. In this connection, report of the Head of the Department of Zoology who was assigned - 2 - the work of re-evaluation of the answer sheets reads as follows: “I. Comment on the answer books of Roll No. 10547, No. 236896 for paper VI and No. 2362270 for paper V. On covered page the aggregate marks is 38 and ½ = 39, which is cumulative value of 8+5 and ½+ 5+ 10 + 10. These are the actual marks awarded by the examiner. In question No. 02, the marks of short answer are tampered as 3+ 4 + 4 + 1 ½ = 12 ½. It represent the conversion of 5 ½ to 12 ½. The answers of Q. No. 1 (Multiple choice) at Page No. 01 and 02 are also tampered. Q. No. 03 represents very poor reply with no knowledge of spelling of associated terms. In the question 05 marks has been provided by the examiner is justified. For Q. No. 05 (Sex determination) examiner has given 10 marks is also justified as reply is moderate to partial with poor line representation of sex determination mechanism. For Q. No. 07, examiner has given 10 marks. The marks are justified due to a large no. of spelling mistake and wrong diagrammatic representation of muational mechanism. In the question the atual marking of examiner is tampered at another place as 10 + 3. A part of question 07 (Induced mutation) is further represented in last pages, whereas two or three pages are teared. In this part one place represents 12 marks and one place represents 10 + 3 marks + 11(Eleven). The 08+03 marks further for question no. 03. In this way question no. 07 represents actual number 10 (ten) + manipulated numbers 10 + (10+03)12. The aggregate of marks becomes 45 (forty five). For question the actual mark is 05 (five) and tampered marks (05+03). Hence make aggregate of 16 (Sixteen). In answer book of Paper – V (236270) – The upper page shows marks 40 (given by examiner) but in inner pages marks are tampered. The answers of Q. No. 01 (Multiple choice) are tampered. For Q. No. 05- Examiner has been given 10 (ten) marks which is justified due to very poor representation and wrong diagrammatic illustration and graphs associate of with transport of respiration gasses. For Q. No. 6 and 10 examiner has given 09 and 08 marks respectively which are justified due to wrong. Representation of blood clotting factor with mechanism and poor analysis of osmoregulation respectively. After that two questions are further included (Q. No. 01 and part of Q. No. 10). The Q. No. 08 represents structures and physiology of pameveas. The question is evaluated by 08 + 05 + 04 + 04 marks = 21 (Twenty one ) - 3 - marks. The part of Q. No. 10 is evaluated by 10+-2+04 = 16 marks. It seems rewrite again after evaluation from different ink. Such manipulation disturbed aggregate marks on front page whereas the actual marking of the examiner are aggregated as 40 (forty) Remarks – The errors observed are a serious functioning defect of examination deptt. IT requires an immediate action on concerning person to maintained proper sanctity.” With reference to the report, we have examined the answer sheets and we have no manner of doubt that the same has been tampered. Mr. Upendra Prasad, appearing on behalf of the appellant submits that this appellant had no access to the answer sheets and for that he cannot be held to be responsible and is entitled for the marks. Mr. Hemendra Prasad Singh appears for the University. We do not have the slightest hesitation in rejecting the submission of Mr. Prasad. Fact of the matter is that there is tampering in the answer sheets of the appellant and, therefore, he shall not be entitled for the marks given to him by tampering the answer sheets. We do not find any merit in the appeal and it is dismissed with costs of Rs.10,000/-. The amount already deposited, shall be transferred in the account of Patna High Court Legal Services Committee. Let the answer sheets be handed over to Mr. Singh. Anil/ (C.K. Prasad, ACJ) (Dharnidhar Jha, J.)