- (1.) From time immemorial, in our culture, the teacher has been the most respected person. He has been assigned pedestal even above Almighty God, which is evident from the following verses: "Gurur brahma Gurur vishnu Gurur devo maheshwara Guru sakshat parabrahma tasmai shri gurave namaha akhanda mandalakaram vyaptam yena characharam tat padam darshitam yena tasmai shri gurave namaha When translated in English it means: Guru is Brahma. Guru is Vishnu. Guru is Shiva. The true Guru is the Highest, formless God. I prostrate before the holy Guru. The unbounded is the endless canopy of the sky, the omnipresent in all creation both animate and inanimate. I bow to Shri Guru who reveals to us the ultimate reality. The famous saint Kabir in the 15th Century eulogised the teacher in the following couplet: Guru Govind dou khade, kaake laagoon paye Balihari guru aapki, Govind diyo milaye. When translated in English it means: I face both God and my guru. Whom should I bow to first? I first bow to my guru because he's the one who showed me the path to God."
(2.) Case in hand is unique example of casualness on the part of the Punjab School Education Board (for short 'the Board') and the examiners appointed by it to evaluate the answer sheets of student of class 10th. The petitioner approached this Court with a grievance that she had been a meritorious student throughout her career. In all the subjects except Hindi, she got either 'A' or 'A+' grade, however, in Hindi she was awarded grade 'C' securing 58 marks out of 100 marks. After notice in the petition was issued, the Board revised the result of the petitioner awarding her 93 marks as against 58 in Hindi and the revised detailed marks sheet was supplied to the petitioner.
(3.) The award of higher marks in the revised marks sheet was sought to be justified stating that average of marks obtained by the petitioner in all other papers was taken as basis, however, in support thereof no rules or instructions were cited. He further submitted that answer sheet was got re-evaluated and the petitioner has got 65 marks as against 29 earlier awarded. It shows casualness on the part of the Board. The procedure which should have been followed by the Board at the first instance was followed only after this Court directed the counsel for the Board to produce the answer sheet in Court.;