- (1.) VINEET Saran, J. Heard learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents. Despite time having been granted, no counter-affidavit has been filed. Today an affidavit has been filed by the respondents annexing therewith the enquiry report, which is being taken on record. In such circumstances, this writ petition has been heard and is being disposed of at this stage.
(2.) THE petitioner appeared in High School Examination 2004 and was declared pass with second division marks. In Science Papers I, II and III he was awarded 19, zero and 24 marks respectively and in Social Science Papers I and II he was awarded 30 and zero marks respectively. THE petitioner thereafter applied for scrutiny of Science Paper II and Social Science Paper II, in which he had been awarded zero marks. THE Assistant Secretary of the Board, by his letter dated 19-1-2005, communicated to the petitioner that after scrutiny there was no change in the marks awarded to him. Challenging the said order, this writ petition has been filed, with a further prayer that if the copies of the petitioner had been lost, then average marks be awarded. Today an affidavit has been filed by the respondent-Board annexing a copy of the enquiry report dated 27-5-2005, wherein it has been held that the answer copies of the aforesaid papers of the petitioner had been lost because of which he had been awarded zero marks, and action against three persons found responsible has been recommended to be initiated. However, in the affidavit it has nowhere been stated as to what action has yet been taken against the said persons who have been found guilty on the basis of enquiry report which was submitted more than 18 months back. This is a clear example of gross negligence on the part of the respondent-Board; firstly by awarding zero marks to the candidate in such papers, the copies of which had been lost; and secondly, communicating to the petitioner on his application for scrutiny, that there was no change of marks after scrutiny, as when the answer copies of the petitioner had been lost, how could they have been scrutinized. Learned Standing Counsel has made a statement that the relevant Rules provide that in case the copy of a candidate is lost, the candidate is to be awarded average marks. In the present case, the learned Standing Counsel has stated that the petitioner has now been awarded average marks on the basis of marks obtained by him in other papers, and fresh mark sheet has already been issued to him by the respondent-Board on 22-12-2006. This has been done only after the respondent-Board was granted time for producing the answer copies. The Court was not informed of any enquiry having been conducted by the respondent-Board in which it had already been found that the answer copies of the petitioner were lost. It is also note worthy that for nearly two years, such facts were withheld from this Court, as no counter-affidavit has been filed. Only when the Board was cornered and did not have any plausible reply to the averments made in the writ petition, that they then applied the Rule of awarding average marks, which had been recommended in the enquiry report submitted 18 months back. It has been stated that after awarding the average marks, the petitioner has now passed the High School Examination, 2004 with first division marks. This is nothing but a case of gross negligence on the part of the respondent-Board. A student, who had actually passed with good first division marks, was declared pass with second division marks, and he was even misinformed by order dated 19-1-2005 that there was no change after scrutiny. Because of such action of the Board, the petitioner must have suffered mental agony, for which he would be entitled for compensation. This Court finds that in the present circumstances, an amount of Rs. 50,000/-would be appropriate compensation which may be paid as costs for the loss caused to the petitioner on account of gross negligence on the part of the respondent- Board.
(3.) ACCORDINGLY, this writ petition stands allowed with costs. The order dated 19-1-2005 passed by the respondent-Board is quashed and the corrected mark sheet after awarding average marks in the two papers in which the answer copies of the petitioner had been lost, be issued to the petitioner forthwith, if not already issued. It is directed that the Secretary, Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U. P. , Allahabad shall ensure that the cost of Rs. 50,000/-is paid to the petitioner by way of Bank draft through the College from where he had appeared in the High School Examination 2004, within one month from today. It is further provided that the respondent-Board shall be at liberty to recover the said cost from the persons/officials found guilty of the negligence of lossing the answer copies and further informing the petitioner that on scrutiny, there had been no change even when the copies were missing, but the same may be done only after giving adequate opportunity of hearing to the persons concerned. Petition allowed. .;