Vineet Saran, J. - (1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.
(2.) THE petitioner was granted admission in B.Sc. Part I with Physics, Mathematics and Statistics as subjects and he appeared in the said examination of B.Sc. Part I. However, in the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner, he has been shown as absent in Chemistry Papers and thus declared fail. THEreafter, the petitioner approached the Registrar of the University by way of filing an application dated 15.12.2005 for correction in the mark-sheet as he did not have Chemistry as a subject and had appeared in Physics, Mathematics and Statistics Papers. When no action was taken on the said application, the petitioner filed a representation before the Vice Chancellor on 16.1.2006. However, both the authorities did not take any decision on the application/ representation of the petitioner and, thus, he has filed this writ petition with the prayer to correct the mark-sheet of the petitioner and show Statistics as subject in place of the Chemistry. A further prayer has been made that a fresh mark-sheet be issued showing the marks earned by the petitioner in Statistics in place of Chemistry. On 7.3.2006 this Court had, by a reasoned order, issued an interim direction to permit the petitioner to appear in B.Sc. Part II Examination. However, the results of B.Sc. Part II examination of the petitioner had not been declared due to pendency of the writ petition. In the counter-affidavit, the respondent-University has not given any reply to the averments with regard to the paragraphs 9, 10 and 11, of the writ petition, wherein it has been stated that the petitioner approached the respondent-authorities by way of filing application/representation. However, it has been stated that the mistake has now been rectified and the corrected mark-sheet was issued on 12.4.2006 in which his marks in Statistics Paper have been recorded instead of showing him absent in Chemistry, and consequently he has been declared pass. No plausible explanation has been given by the respondents for not declaring the result of the petitioner of B.Sc. Part II Examination when they themselves corrected the mistake as way back as in April 2006. There was also no restraint by this Court of declaring the result of the B.Sc. Part II Examination of the petitioner. All this amounts to gross negligence on the part of the respondent-University, first by forcing the petitioner to approach this Court because of their own negligence which they corrected only after the filing of the writ petition and not on the application of the petitioner, and then by not declaring the result of B.Sc. Part II even when the mistake was rectified. It is the responsibility of the authorities to themselves correct the mistake committed by them and not wait for the Courts to issue such direction. It is only because of such inaction on the part of these authorities that this Court is flooded with cases, which would not be otherwise necessary, if the authorities themselves act responsibly. Such position, especially in the case of a University, is extremely unfortunate.
(3.) IN the present case, had the action been taken on the application/ representation of the petitioner for correcting the mistake, the petitioner would not have had to come to Court. Further, once the University had itself rectified the mistake and corrected the mark-sheet, and the petitioner had appeared in B.Sc. Part II Examination, it was the duty of the respondent-authorities to ensure that the result of the petitioner of B.Sc. Part II was declared alongwith other candidates. Taking an excuse that the same could not be done for the technical reason of pendency of the writ petition (without even there being any stay order) and would now be done, further shows negligence on the part of University Authorities towards its students. The explanation of the University is certainly not worthy of acceptance and it shows their complete indifference towards their own duty. As such, in my view, the petitioner would be entitled to be compensated for the mental agony and loss caused to him, which this Court assessed at Rs. 10,000 and which shall be paid to the petitioner as costs. Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed. The result of B.Sc. Part II Examination shall now be declared by the respondent University forthwith, but not later than two weeks. The Registrar, Dr. Bhim Rao Ambedkar University, Agra, respondent No. 2 shall ensure that the costs of Rs. 10,000 is paid to the petitioner by way of a Bank draft within one month. The respondent University shall further permit the petitioner to pursue his studies in B.Sc. Part III and he shall also be permitted to appear in the examination, and his result declared within time alongwith the other candidates.;