WP(C) 3581/2008 BEFORE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY Heard Mr. A. M. Mazumdar, learned Senior counsel for the petitioner as w ell as Mr. Chakraborty, learned Standing counsel, Gauhati University (hereinafte r referred to as the ’University’). For the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessary to i ssue formal notice to the respondents. Pursuant to the order dated 18.08.2008 of this Court, Mr. Chakraborty, h as produced the answer scripts of the petitioner in ’Law of Crimes’ for the LL.B . Final Examination, 2007, conducted by the University. On a perusal of the answ ers provided by her vis-à-vis the questions attempted and the marks allotted the refor, in the estimate of this Court, some of her answers have been under evalua ted. For obvious reasons this Court restrains itself from indicating the answers . It is but left with the impression that it is a fit case where a direction for re-evaluation of the petitioner’s answer script be issued in the interest of ju stice. The respondent University, therefore, is ordered to arrange for the abov e exercise through an expert on the subject and designated by it to be eligible to do so. As the petitioner has been pursuing this relief and as it is submitted at the bar that the present is her last attempt to clear the course, the respon dent University would endeavour to complete the process as ordered as expeditiou sly as possible and in no case be later than one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order. It is, however, made clear that the re-evaluation of the petitioner’s an swer script has been made on the singular facts of the present case and ought no t be construed to be a precedent for the future. The answer script be returned t o Mr. Chakraborty. The petition is allowed in the above terms. No cost. A copy of this order be furnished to Mr. Chakraborty, so as to enable hi m to do the needful.