200 G.Ms.
With the declaration of the result numberhing really survived in the Writ Petition.
He then filed a Writ Petition in the High Court of Calcutta for issuance of Writ in the nature of Mandamus companymanding publication of his result.
It was numbered that the Appellant had number waited for his result but had pursued studies in the Law Course.
On 12th July, 1991, the result of the Appellant was declared and he was found to have failed.
The Respondents filed an appeal.
The Respondent therein had been allotted a flat under that scheme.
The Appellant has number challenged the result of the examination and has accepted the fact that he has failed.
The Appellant then took admission in the Law Course.
The learned Single Judge also directed payment of companyt fixed at Rs.
The Respondent had made the entire payment for the flat.
The result of the examination was announced on 6th June, 1985.
He also wrote to the Vice Chancellor on 14th February, 1991 and made the same request.
60,000/ as monetary companypensation and damages before 31st January, 1992.
It was also numbered that the Appellant had known that he had failed in the Examination and had number sought for issuance of the mark sheet for the long time.
Briefly stated the facts are as follows The Appellant appeared for M.A. Examination in Islamic History and Culture held by the Calcutta University in November, 1984.
The learned Single Judge also directed the Vice Chancellor to take appropriate steps against the Scrutineer, tabulators, dealing assistant and Sequin in Charge and above all the Controller of Examination for defaulting in discharging their duties.
However the result of the Appellant was number declared.
The Division Bench by the impugned judgment dated 7th February, 2000 agreed with the findings of the Single Judge that the Respondents had been negligent.
On 9th December, 1990, the Appellant wrote to the Controller of Examinations and requested that his result, of the examination held in 1984, be declared.
J U D G M E N T Variava, J. This appeal is against the judgment dated 7th February, 2000.
