IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA Civil Writ Jurisdiction Case No.3970 of 2010 1. Vikash Kumar S/O Late R.B. Thakur R/O Mohalla- Mithanpura, P.S. Mithanpura, P.O. Ramna, Distt.- Muzaffarpur Versus 1. The Vice-Chancellor B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 2. The Registrar B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 3. The Deputy Registrar B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur 4. The Examination Controller B.R.A. Bihar University, Muzaffarpur ---------------------------------- For the Petitioner : Dr. Mahtab Ahmad, Advocate with Mr. Prabhakar Nath Ravi, Advocate For the University : Mr. Harendra Kumar Tiwary, Advocate ---------- 7. 08.11.2011 Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and the University. The petitioner was a student of B.Sc. Mathematics (Honors.) in the Jagannath Mishra College at Muzaffarpur affiliated to B.R.A. Bihar University. He is aggrieved by grant of “03” marks in Paper 3 of Part II of the course. It is his case that results of Part II Paper 3 in which he had re-appeared were published on 13.7.2009. There is no specific pleading to that effect. Counsel for the University submits that he has instructions to sate that the result of Part II Paper 3 in which the petitioner re-appeared was published on 8.4.2008. Again there is no pleading on record to that effect. The writ petition was filed after serving copies on the Counsel for the University on 4.3.2010.The University was therefore fully aware of the pendency of the writ petition and the nature of the relief sought. On 21.9.2010 time was granted to file counter affidavit. Further adjournment for the purpose was granted on 4.11.2010. On 26.11.2010 the Court directed the University to produce the answer sheet of the petitioner in Part II Paper 3 for perusal by the Court. 2 It now transpires from the stand of the University that on 23.11.2010 the Vice Chancellor in anticipation of approval by the appropriate Committee of the University directed for auction of the answer books. A paper publication was made on 23.11.2010. Counsel for the University submits that the petitioner never responded to the same which the Counsel for the petitioner disputes. It is thus the contention of the University that in accordance with the prevalent practice, the examinations in question having been held in the year 2007, the answer sheets have been auctioned as rubbish after three years and no more available. It is fairly acknowledged that there are no statutory provisions to that effect but it is a matter based more on practice. The Court finds it difficult to appreciate the stand of the University. The petitioner by no stretch can be said to have approached this Court belatedly or beyond unreasonable time after publication of the result. The University was excepted to act more prudently when the matter was already subjudice at least in so far the petitioner’s answer sheet was concerned. Counsel for the University from the supplementary counter affidavit points out that the petitioner neither applied for re-totaling nor was he a student with remarkable academic performance. The Court does not find it possible to give any positive direction as in absence of his answer sheet no discernment of the marks obtained is possible. But the regulations do provide for moderation of results in Clause 15. If powers for moderation be there let the University in the facts of the present case appropriately consider moderation of his marks in Part II Paper 3 appropriately. 3 Let the order be complied with within a maximum period of three months from the date of receipt and/or presentation of a copy of this order before the Vice Chancellor. The draft for Rs. 25,000/- deposited by the petitioner before the Registrar General of this Court in pursuance of the order dated 26.11.2010 may be returned to him. The writ application stands disposed. Snkumar/- (Navin Sinha,J.)