Madhusmita Poddar v. The Gauhati University and 4 Ors

ORDER Date : 08.02.2024 Heard Mr. R. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Mr. P. J. Phukan, learned standing counsel representing the Gauhati University. At the outset, Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he would not be arguing any other point, but, would limit his arguments to the question as to whether the University authorities have carried out the re-evaluation exercise with regard to the paper of the petitioner pertaining to Engineering Mathematics-I (MA 101) by appointment of an alternative examiner other than the examiner who had earlier evaluated the said answer script of the petitioner. Mr. Phukan, learned standing counsel, responding to the said contention has placed before this Court a communication received by him from the Controller of Examination, Gauhati University, wherein it has been stated that two evaluators were engaged to evaluate the two separate sections available in that paper. It is the further contention of Mr. Phukan, learned standing counsel that the two evaluators now engaged had not evaluated the said paper of the petitioner earlier. In that view of the matter, it being demonstrated by the authorities of Gauhati University that the re-evaluation of the Engineering Page No.# 3/3 Mathematics-I (MA 101) paper of the petitioner to have been so done by a separate set of examiners, the apprehension as raised by Mr. Dubey, learned counsel for the petitioner, in this connection, no longer subsists and there being no other grounds urged in the present proceedings, no further issue remains for adjudication herein. Accordingly, the writ petition stands closed. However, there would be no order as to costs. The communication as produced by Mr. P. J. Phukan, learned standing counsel for the Gauhati University is returned to him. JUDGE Comparing Assistant

PageoNo.#o1/3 GAHC010207962016 ooooooo ooooooooooooooo ooooooooooooooooTHEoGAUHATIoHIGHoCOURTo (HIGHoCOURToOFoASSAM,oNAGALAND,oMIZORAMoANDoARUNACHALoPRADESH)o CaseoNo.o:oWP(C)/6472/2016o MADHUSMITAoPODDARo D/OoSRIoMOHANoCHANDRAoPODDARoR/OoFATASHIL,oAMBARIoNEARo MAYURoKRISHNAoCINEMAoHALLoGUWAHATI-o781025. VERSUSo THEoGAUHATIoUNIVERSITYoando4oORS.o JALUKBARI,oGUWAHATIo-15. 2:THEoREGISTRAR oGAUHATIoUNIVERSITYoJALUKBARI oGUWAHATIo-15. 3:THEoCONTROLLERoOFoEXAMINATIONS oGAUHATIoUNIVERSITY 4:CENTRALoINSTITUTEoOFoTECHNOLOGY oKOKRAJHAR oBTAD oASSAM-o783370 oREP.oBYoITSoDIRECTOR. 5:THEoDIRECTOR oCENTRALoINSTITUTEoOFoTECHNOLOGYoKOKRAJHAR oBTAD oASSAM-o783370 oREP.oBYoITSoDIRECTORo AdvocateoforotheoPetitionerooooo:oMS.AoBoKAYASTHAo Page No.# 2/3 Advocate for the Respondent : BEFORE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE N. UNNI KRISHNAN NAIR