Skip to content


Chapala Kumari Naik Vs. Registrar, Utkal University and anr. - Court Judgment

LegalCrystal Citation
SubjectConstitution
CourtOrissa High Court
Decided On
Case NumberOriginal Jurisdiction Case No. 2191 of 1983
Judge
Reported in1984(II)OLR648
ActsConstitution of India - Article 226
AppellantChapala Kumari Naik
RespondentRegistrar, Utkal University and anr.
Appellant AdvocateP. Palit and M.K. Mallick
Respondent AdvocateS.C. Mohapatra and A.K. Sahoo
Excerpt:
- labour & services pay scale:[tarun chatterjee & r.m. lodha,jj] fixation - orissa service code (1939), rule 74(b) promotion - government servant, by virtue of rule 74(b), gets higher pay than what he was getting immediately before his promotion - circular dated 19.3.1983 modifying earlier circular dated 18.6.1982 resulting in reduction of pay of employee on promotion held, it is not legal. statutory rules cannot be altered or amended by such executive orders or circulars or instructions nor can they replace statutory rules. - we arc satisfied that the answer to question no......having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we directed the question paper and the answer paper of the petitioner to be produced in court and pursuant to the said order, the question paper and the answer paper have been produced.. after perusing the same, we find that there is some confusion in evaluating the answers. the petitioner was required to answer four questions from group 'a' and one from group 'b'. the petitioner has answered questions nos. 1, 2, 4 and 8 out of group 'a'. while answering question no. 8 which requires her to write short notes on any two of the subjects given there-under, she has put numerical number against different paragraphs, all of which together constitute the answer to that question. the examiner has evaluated the answer to question no. 8.....
Judgment:

P.C. Misra, J.

1. The petitioner was an examinee in the Bachelor of Education Examination held in the month of May, 1982. She has prayed in this writ application for appropriate direction to be issued for re-valuation of her answer paper in Paper II by a competent examiner. Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner, we directed the question paper and the answer paper of the petitioner to be produced in Court and pursuant to the said order, the question paper and the answer paper have been produced.. After perusing the same, we find that there is some confusion in evaluating the answers. The petitioner was required to answer four questions from Group 'A' and one from Group 'B'. The petitioner has answered questions Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 8 out of Group 'A'. While answering question No. 8 which requires her to write short notes on any two of the subjects given there-under, she has put numerical number against different paragraphs, all of which together constitute the answer to that question. The examiner has evaluated the answer to question No. 8 and has proceeded on the assumption that question No. 2 had already been answered under a confusion that paragraph marked-as No. 2 under question No. 8 is the answer to question No. 2. Therefore, the answer to question No 2 which was answered last has been indicated to be an extra answer,. He has, therefore, not evaluated the answer to question No 2 at all. We arc satisfied that the answer to question No. 2 should have been evaluated and the same should have been added to the marks obtained by the petitioner in that Paper. The result has been that the answers to three questions out of Group 'A' in Paper II have been evaluated though the petitioner has answered four questions.

2. In the circumstances, we would direct that the answer to question No. 2 which has been indicated in the answer paper by the examiner as an extra answer be evaluated and the marks awarded be added to the marks obtained by the petitioner. Since there has been a confusion while evaluating the answer to question No. 8, it is appropriate that both questions Nos. 2 and 8 be evaluated. The evaluation be made by the examiner who had examined the answer paper, if available, or by the Chief Examiner. After evaluating the paper as indicated above, the petitioner be dealt with in accordance with the Rules and Regulations prescribed by the University within six weeks hence.

3. In the result, therefore, we set aside the result as declared by the University relating to the petitioner or the examination in question and the writ application is accordingly disposed of with the aforesaid directions.

There would be no order as to costs.

G.B. Patnaik, J.

4. I agree


Save Judgments// Add Notes // Store Search Result sets // Organizer Client Files //