MISRA, J. - (1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the order of the learned Single Judge passed in S. B. C. W. Petition No. 573/2001 dated 17. 10. 2003 by which the respondent student Yashpal Singh jhala of the appellant University of Rajasthan who was the petitioner before the Single Bench was granted a cost of Rs. 10,000/- on account of mental agony for which he had been suffered due to negligence on the part of the appellant University. THIS cost was imposed as the University had wrongly marked the respondent-student as absent in one of the papers of L. L. M Part II although he had duly appeared in the said Paper.
(2.) IN order to clarify the position, it may be stated that the respondent had filed a writ petition before the Single Bench raising a grievance that he had wrongly been marked absent in the LLM. Part-II paper although he had appeared in the said paper. This was found to be true after scrutiny of facts by the learned Single Judge and therefore, a cost of Rs. 10,000/- had been imposed on the University to be paid to the respondent-student and the examination fee of Rs. 120/- was also ordered to be refunded which had been deposited by respondent-student for appearing afresh in the paper. Learned counsel for the appellant-University Mr. Katta submitted that he learned Single Judge has not appreciated the difficulty of the university which has to conduct examination of large number of students and such mistake once in a while does take place which should have been ignored due to pressure of conducting such examination. It is for this reason that he has urged in this appeal that the cost of Rs. 10,000/- imposed on the appellant university to be paid to the respondent student, should be withdrawn. It is no doubt that the University has to conduct the examination of large number of students, but it is also expected of it as an Institution to do the same in a fair and upright manner where the students may not have to suffer for the recklessness of the university specially in the matter of an examination of students like the present one where although the respondent-student had appeared in the paper, he had been shown as absent, causing grave mental agony and inconvenience to the respondent-student. Therefore, this plea that it's recklessness should have been ignored by the court of law is not worth accepting. We, however, taking into account the fact that the mistake was not bonafide on the part of the University, reduce the cost from Rs. 10,000/- to Rs. 5,000/- as we cannot ignore the fact that the respondent student had to approach this court by filing a writ petition for redressal of his grievance. We would further like to add that a mistake of this nature which was alleged by the respondent-student, ought to have been rectified by the University itself when the student filed a representation before the University and it is not expected to compel the students to approach the court of law for redressal of their grievance as had been done by the administration of the University in this matter. In fact, under circumstance of this nature, when a representation in writing was submitted by the affected student, it was expected of the University to examine a grievance of this nature at it's own administrative level without pushing the student to the court unnecessarily causing much distress and expense. This appeal be treated as partly allowed in view of the reduction in the cost imposed on the University and stands disposed of with the aforesaid observation. . ;