WA 55/2011 BEFORE HON’BLE MR JUSTICE AMITAVA ROY HON’BLE MR JUSTICE C.R.SARMA (Amitava Roy,J) In challenge is the judgment and order dated 13.5.2010 passed by the l eaned Single Judge in WP( C) No.5010/2009 and the order dated 17.9.2010 rendered in Review Petition No.81/2010. We have heard Mr AR Medhi, learned counsel for the appellant. In view of the order proposed to be passed, it is not considered necessa ry to issue notice to the respondents. Briefly stated, the facts relevant for disposal of the instant appeal ar e that, the appellant, a student of M.Tech ( Petroleum Exploration and Producti on) of the Semester 2009 of Dibrugarh University ( for short, hereafter referred to as the ’University’), had appeared in the final examination (4th Semester) held in the month of June,2009 whereafter the result was declared on 26.8.2009. The appellant was shown to have secured 64.61% i.e. 0.39% short of the first c lass. Being dissatisfied with the result, which according to him, was not comme nsurate to his performance, he applied to the concerned authority of the University under Right to Information Act, 2005 and on going through his Dissertation paper came across the followin g remarks of the Examiner - content of the abstract found to be reproduced from that of the earli er dissertation submitted by Miss Minakshi Hazarika in 2005-2007 On his application, the Deputy Controller of Examinations, Dibrugarh University supplied him the X-erox copy of his dissertation paper. On a scrutiny thereof, he noticed some anomalies in the evaluation of the External Examiner which ha d no basis. On further enquiries, he came to learn that the External Examiner wa s only B.E (Mechanical Engineer) without any Master Degree and this led him to b elieve that his dissertation paper had not been appropriately appraised resultin g in his low marking. As his request with the concerned authority of the Univers ity for having his dissertation paper re-examined/re-evaluated did not evoke any response, he approached this Court with WP( C) No.5010/2009. By the impugned j udgment and order dated 13.5.2010, the challenge was negated. His endeavour to review the impugned judgment and order also failed. It is, in this background that the appellant is in appeal. Mr Medhi has persuasively argued with reference to Clause 50 of the Dib rugarh University Examination Ordinance( 1972) that as the External Examiner was not qualified to discharge the role as contemplated, the whole exercise undert aken by him is illegal and vitiated and thus , it is a fit case in which the im pugned judgment and order ought to be interfered with and the respondent author ity should be directed to have the appellant’s dissertation paper re-evaluated b y a competent examiner on merits. He has further submitted that the appreciation of the appellant’s dissertation paper is also vitiated by bias which is also apparent on the face of record from the remarks made by the Examiner as quote d hereinabove. On being queried by this court, Mr Medhi admitted that though the Extern al Examiner had not been made a party respondent in the writ proceeding, followi ng the judgment and order rendered by the learned Single Judge, he had been arr ayed as one in the instant memo of appeal. In view of the fact that the External Examiner had not been impleaded as a respondent in the writ proceeding, we are not inclined to entertain the appel lant’s plea of bias against him. The law of pleadings in our opinion, does not p ermit such kind of a casual impleadment and entertainment of plea of bias and against such a person exparte. A bare reading of Clause 50 of the Ordinance aforementioned, does not, i n any view of the matter, prescribe the conditions of eligibility to be satisfi ed by an External Examiner for evaluating dissertation papers. In that view of the matter, the contention of incompetence also falls through. We have examined the findings recorded by the learned Single Judge in his impugned judgment and orders and do not find any reason to interfere therewith. The appeal lacks in me rit and is dismissed. No costs.