S.N.Srivastava - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner and learned standing counsel.
(2.) LEARNED standing counsel states that on rechecking, it was found that the petitioner secured 31 marks instead of 21 marks in Science III paper. Likewise, in Computer, he secured 78 marks instead of 70 marks. Thus, there is total difference of 18 marks. The learned counsel attributed the aforesaid mistake to error of computer. Regard being had to the omission in feeding the marks in computer, I am of the view that conduct of the official which is fraught with the consequence of playing with the future and career of a gullible student must be censured. In my considered opinion, the Board will institute appropriate enquiry into the matter and in case the official concerned charged with the duty of feeding marks in the computer is found at fault, it may take appropriate action against him. It is indeed a serious matter and it is expected that the Board will not show any unmerited leniency in such matters when the future and career of a student is at stake. In the instant case, it would appear from the record that the petitioner had applied for scrutiny. It is further averred in para 7 of writ petition that the petitioner was informed that no difference of marks was found upon rechecking of marks. It is a serious matter that the officials of the Board treated the entire matter lightly while the fact remains that upon totalling of marks by the Court, in all there was a difference of 18 marks in aggregate. The learned counsel tried to whittle down the mistake saying that it was attributable, to error of computer and no official can be blamed for the same. This submission does not cut any ice and I am of the view that it is a serious matter fraught with the consequence of playing with the career of a student and the delinquent official should not be left unscathed. Therefore, I am of the view that the agony and harassment of the petitioner must be repaired adequately and regard being had to the facts stated supra, I am of the view that a sum of Rs. 5,000 should be quantified as cost payable to the petitioner by the Board. It would be open to the Board to recover the said amount from the salary of the official at fault.
(3.) IN view of the above, writ petition succeeds and is allowed with cost of Rs. 5,000. Board is directed to issue corrected mark-sheet to petitioner within two weeks from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Let certified copy of this order be issued to learned counsel for the parties within a week.;