Delhi High Court
Shri Anand Prakash Jain vs The Institute Of Chartered ... on 9 July, 2003
Author: B D Ahmed
Bench: B D Ahmed
JUDGMENT
Badar Durrez Ahmed, J.
1. The petitioner has prayed for the issuance of a direction to the Respondent to produce the original answer sheets of the petitioner for the past five years for perusal by this Court and for declaring the petitioner successful if the records are in favor of the petitioner.
2. As per directions given by this Court the original answer sheets for the past two examinations were produced by the respondent Institute. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent institute submits that as per policy the institute does not keep papers of more than two examinations at any point of time. As such, the previous three examinations' answer sheets in respect of all the candidates have been destroyed. However, the marks obtained are kept in the records of the institute which are available.
3. On examination of the answer books for November 2001 and May, 2001, it appears that the marks given by the examiner are the marks which are shown in the mark sheets and which have been annexed as Annexure P-5 at page 16 of the paper book. There is no discrepancy between the marks awarded by the examiner and the marks recorded in the mark sheets. As such, the petitioner cannot have any grievance in this regard.
4. However, before concluding, it would be relevant to point out that the essence of the grievance of the petitioner was that he was being singled out and discriminated upon by the Institute in view of the fact that there was some cricket match which was organized and in which he had heated exchange with the Umpire. Although the petitioner stated in paragraph 7 of the petition that he apologized to the Umpire during the lunch-break, it appears that the Umpire took it to heart and was vindictively and in a mala fide manner ruining the career of the petitioner. In paragraph 14 of the petition, the petitioner has stated that it came to know from reliable sources that the Umpire during the Cricket match was the person who was in charge of Administration of the Respondent institute. It is also stated that he apprehends that the marks given to him in his answer sheets are not being correctly written in the mark sheets. Insofar as the other allegations with regard to the organisation of the cricket match, altercation with the Umpire and the Umpire holding an important position in the respondent institute are concrned, the counter affidavit of the respondent institute discloses that all these allegations are baseless. In the counter affidavit in paragraph 7 it is categorically stated that the Umpires in the match which was held on 19th December, 1998 were Mr. Ashok, Mr. Deepak and Mr. Manoj and none of these persons were officials of the respondent institute, far from being in charge of the respondent institute. There is therefore, no question of the said cricket match having led to an animus against the petitioner. In fact, even if one were to see the allegations contained in paragraph 7 of the writ petition, it would be clear that material particulars such as the name of the Umpire is not mentioned, the year in which the cricket match was supposedly organized and the date on which it was held has also not been mentioned. However, the respondent institute assuming that the reference was to the match held on 19th December, 1998 has clearly stated that the Umpires in that match were not officials of the respondent institute. The allegations of mala fide are therefore of no substance.
5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I find that there is no merit in the writ petition and the same is, accordingly dismissed. There shall be no orders as to costs.
