R.M. Sahai, J. - (1.) RESULT of intermediate examination for the year 1983 of petitioner was withheld as he was stated to have not appeared in Chemistry II paper. On representation made by him alleging tampering the Board constituted a Committee which held inquiry and found that petitioner had appeared in the aforesaid paper. The Committee perused two answer books of Chemistry Ist paper of petitioner and of candidate having roll No. 265860. It also examined answer book of Chemistry II paper on which there was cutting and the Roll number purported to read 265860. Before the Committee the candidate having Roll No. 265860 admitted that it was not his answer book. The Committee found that the writing etc on the answer book of Chemistry II paper tallied with hand writing of answer book of Chemistry 1st paper of petitioner. This committee was headed by Up Sachiv, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Meerut. It is stated that inspite of intimation by Committee the Principal and the examination superintendent did not appear. Despite this report the result of petitioner was not declared. On further inquiry he came to know that the Board after receiving the report instead of declaring his result appointed another Committee headed by some officer of Varanasi region which gave a report that petitioner did not appear in Chemistry II paper. It is alleged that the Committee never gave any notice to petitioner and the report was submitted without affording any opportunity. Faced with this difficulty petitioner filed Suit No. 731 of 1984 which was decreed on 1st November, 1985. It was declared that petitioner had appeared in Chemistry II paper. The further declaration granted was that the answer book in the court was in fact of Roll No. 265870 that is, petitioner. As a result of these two declarations the Court directed opposite parties to declare result of petitioner. But nothing was done. The Board kept mum even after petitioner filed a copy of judgment in March, 1986. Having thus gained nothing the petitioner approached this Court by way of this petition on 9th September, 1986. Since matter appeared to be urgent the learned standing Counsel was granted time till 18th September, 1986 to obtain instructions. Thereafter time was granted on number of occasions to file counter -affidavit But it proved of no avail. On 5th December when the petition was taken up the learned standing counsel stated on instructions of an official who had come from the region concerned that the order dated 1st November, 1985 was ex parte and it has been recalled and the suit is listed for hearing on 12th December, 1986. It was seriously contested. The learned Standing Counsel was, therefore, directed to file an affidavit in support of statement made by the official till 8th December 1986. Today when the petition was taken up the learned State counsel stated that no counter -affidavit could be filed as the official did not turn up. He is not present even today. Learned counsel for petitioner on the other hand produced certified copy of question and answer which belies the statement of official. The query if the order dated 1st November 1985 has been cancelled is answered in negative. Narration of facts leave no room for doubt that opposite parties have not acted with responsibility. They did not care to comply with directions of the court. They have chosen not to file counter -affidavit in this Court. Attempt has even been made to mislead. Such conduct is highly reprehensible.
(2.) ORDER of the Munsif has been passed after written statement had been filed and evidence had been filed. The munsif had examined the enquiry report and found it as a fact that forgery was committed in the Roll number and the answer book of petitioner was altered to read as answer book of roll No. 265860. So long this order stands it is binding. The opposite party could not delay declaration of result on pretext that they had filed some application for restoration. Although there is no material in support of pendency of application but even assuming it is the Board was bound to comply with directions unless its operation was stayed by any competent court. In any case, allegations in petition having not been controverted it stands established that petitioner had appeared in Chemistry II paper and the answer book with Roll No. 265860 in fact was of petitioner. Compensation for loss has been claimed by petitioner. But how to calculate is the problem. Details etc. have been furnished. All the same taken compensation can be given in shape of costs more because of conduct of opposite parties. In the result this petition succeeds and is allowed. The opposite party No. 1 is directed to declare result of petitioner of Chemistry II paper calculating the marks of answer book of Roll No. 265860 as his answer book within a period of one month from the date a copy of this order is produced before him. The opposite party No. 1 shall further pay cost of Rs. 2,000/ - to petitioner.;