JUDGMENT In this Rule, which was obtained on an application under Article 226 (1) of the Constitution, the petitioner, Minakshi Chowdhury, who appeared in the School Final Examination held in the year 1969, disputes the decision of the Board of Secondary Education with regard to her result. 2. The petitioner appeared at the said examination as a private candidate from the Haltu High School for girls on a permission given by the Board. The said examination was held in or about the month of April 1969 and her Roll Number was South FP No. C 96. Result of the said examination was published by the Board on July 17, 1969 but against the petitioner's roll number the letter 'W' appeared in the published result, indicating that her result had been withheld. It is not disputed that subsequently on August 13, 1969 the Board finalised the petitioner's result and sent the mark sheet through the school which was received by the petitioner on August 21, 1969. From this mark-sheet it appears that the petitioner had failed in one subject, namely, Mathematics and as such was given an option to appear at a compartmental examination due on August 20. 1969. 3. According to the petitioner, she had not actually failed in the examination as indicated by the mark-sheet but she was made to fail at the instance of respondent No.3, the Secretary of the Board, out of personal enmity. Her case is that as usual with other candidates her result was also duly approved and declared by the Examinations Committee of the Board and according to the said result she had duly passed the School Final Examination. But thereafter the respondent No.3, the Secretary of the Board, approached the different Head Examiners of Mathematics, General Science and Sanskrit to deduct certain marks allotted to her and although some of them refused the said respondent No.3, deducted 8 marks from her Mathematics script, 12 marks from her General Science script and 5 marks from her Sanskrit script. This was done, according to the petitioner, without the knowledge of the Examinations Committee after the said Committee had approved her result only out of personal enmity with the petitioner's father who being an employee of the Board and the President of the Employees' Union had often come in confrontation with the said respondent No.3. This was done, according to the petitioner, without the knowledge of the Examinations Committee after the said Committee had approved her result only out of personal enmity with the petitioner's father who being an employee of the Board and the President of the Employees' Union had often come in confrontation with the said respondent No.3. She states that such deduction, resulting in her failure, had not only been made malafide but as a punitive measure and as such the decision of the Board is liable to be struck down by this Court. 4. On the pleadings as above, the petitioner prays for a writ of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Board regarding her result and also for a writ of Mandamus declaring her to have passed the School Final Examination held in 1969. 5. Respondents to this application are not only the Board and its authorities but also some of the Head Examiners and Tabulators and the conflicting stand taken by the Board, the Examinations Committee, its, officers on the one hand and that taken by some of Head Examiners and one of the Tabulators on the other, had put this Court to great embarrasment. 6. An affidavit-in-opposition was filed on December 22, 1969 by the Deputy Secretary of the Board on behalf of the respondents Nos. 1, 2, 2A, 3 and 4, or in other words, the Board, its President, the Examinations Committee, the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary. In this affidavit the answering respondents denied the allegations made by the petitioner including the allegation of malafide interference by the Secretary: according to the said respondents the Examinations Committee never approved the result of the petitioner declaring her to have passed; on the other hand, the said Committee withheld her result on some reports of the petitioner adopting unfair practice of contacting Head Examiners for securing illegal advantage; thereafter her result was finalised and she was found to fail in Mathematics. 7. One of the members of the Examinations Committee being respondent No. 2B, filed an affidavit on his behalf and for the respondent Nos. 2E & 2F, the two other members of the Examinations Committee, broadly supporting the case made out by the respondent No.4, the Deputy Secretary, in the affidavit as aforesaid. Similar is the affidavit filed on December 22, 1969 by one of the Tabulators viz. respondent No.9. 8. 2E & 2F, the two other members of the Examinations Committee, broadly supporting the case made out by the respondent No.4, the Deputy Secretary, in the affidavit as aforesaid. Similar is the affidavit filed on December 22, 1969 by one of the Tabulators viz. respondent No.9. 8. On January 19, 1970 each of the respondents Nos. 7 and 10 tiled an affidavit. Respondent No.7 is the Head Examiner in General Science and Respondent No. 10 is the other Tabulator. In these affidavits they made certain allegations highly embarrasing to the Board and its Secretary but in ultimate analysis such affidavits do not in reality advance the case of the petitioner. According to Respondent No.7, he had awarded 46 marks in General Science to the petitioner after revision and not 34 as it appears from the finally published mark-sheet of the petitioner. This respondent has further stated that this reduction from 46 to 34 was not made to his knowledge. He goes on to say that by memo dated July 15, 1969 he was directed to see the Secretary of the Board on July 17, 1969 when, it is alleged, the Secretary confronted him as to whether he had enhanced the mark obtained by the petitioner. He then took strong exception to this and lodged a complaint with the President of the Board, a copy whereof is annexed to the affidavit. Respondent No.10 on the other hand, states in his affidavit that the petitioner had obtained 30 marks in Mathematics, 46 marks in General Science and 42 marks in Sanskrit at the stage of tabulation as against 22, 34 and 37 as appearing from the finally published mark-sheet. According to this respondent, he did not receive any intimation whatsoever from the Board or the Examinations Committee for withholding the result of the petitioner and that the mark-sheet annexed to the application only indicates the marks as obtained by the petitioner prior to their revision by the respective Head Examiners. 9. These two affidavits though meant to be used against the other respondents were not served on them and as such this Court on February 24, 1970 directed copies of such affidavits to be served on the other respondents giving them an opportunity to file an affidavit in rejoinder. On such leave two affidavits have been filed by Nirmal Sinha, Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education. On such leave two affidavits have been filed by Nirmal Sinha, Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education. In one of them he has denied all the al1egations made personally against him and in the other he has not only controverted the statements made by respondent Nos. 7 and 10 but also disclosed more fully all the facts and circumstances that led to the withholding of petitioner's result and then finalising the same by declaring her to have failed in Mathematics. 10. Before going over to consider the respective contentions, it would be necessary to refer to the relevant provisions or the statute in short. Under section 27 of the West Bengal Board of Secondary Education Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as the said Act) the general power to direct, supervise and control Secondary Education is vested in the Board of Secondary Education constituted under section 3 thereof. Under section 27 (2) (g) the Board has the power to make regulations regarding the conditions to be fulfilled by candidates presenting themselves for examinations instituted by the Board. Under section 27 (2) (h) the Board has the power to publish the results of any examinations instituted by the Board and to award diplomas, certificates prizes and scholarships in respect thereof. Under section 27 (2) (j) the Board has the power to grant permission to candidates to appear at examinations instituted by the Board and to refuse or withdraw such permission if it thinks fit in accordance with such regulations as may be made in this behalf. Section 27 (3) empowers the Board to make regulations subject to prior approval by the State Government and publication in the official gazette. In this case none of the parties claims that there is any such regulations framed by the Board. The case has been argued with reference to the provisions of section 21 of the said Act and has got to be decided on the true construction thereof. The said Act, in Chapter III, provides for different Committees and Councils. One of such committees is the Examinations Committee as constituted under section 21 (1) of the said Act. Under section 21 (2) the President of the Board is ex-officio Chairman of the Examinations Committee, so also is the Secretary of the Board, the Secretary of such Committee. The said Act, in Chapter III, provides for different Committees and Councils. One of such committees is the Examinations Committee as constituted under section 21 (1) of the said Act. Under section 21 (2) the President of the Board is ex-officio Chairman of the Examinations Committee, so also is the Secretary of the Board, the Secretary of such Committee. Section 21 (3) is in following terms :- "It shall be the duty of the Examinations Committee to-(a) arrange for the holding of examinations instituted by the Board including the fixing of the centers for such examinations; (b) appoint Paper-setters and Moderators for such examinations; (c) appoint Examiners, Tabulators, Supervisors and Invigilators for such examinations; (d) consider, approve and publish the results of such examinations and; (e) disqualify candidates for presenting themselves at examinations for any reason considered to be adequate or for being declared as having passed any such examination on the ground of misconduct. " Section 21 (5) again provides that the Examinations Committee may appoint Sub-Committees for certain specific purposes. 11. Now reverting back to the facts of the present case, it would appear clear from the pleadings referred to hereinbefore that the principal case as sought to be made out by the petitioner was two-fold, namely, (1) that the petitioner's result in the examination, holding her to have passed the same, having been duly approved and declared as such by the Examinations Committee, it could not have been lawfully revised thereafter, a case being made out in paragraphs 14, 15, 18 and 30 of the petition, (2) secondly, that such revision was the result of malafide interference by respondent No 3, the Secretary of the Board of Secondary Education. 12. The first of the aforesaid two cases sought to be made out by the petitioner has clearly no foundation on facts. That the Examinations Committee never approved or declared any result in respect of the petitioner, declaring her to have passed, has not only been categorically asserted by the respondents 1, 2, 2A, 3 & 4 by the two affidavits filed by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary but also is well corroborated by the affidavit of respondent No. 2B, who happens to be one of the members of the Examinations Committee. I have no reason to disbelieve the said statements made by the respondents. I have no reason to disbelieve the said statements made by the respondents. Further, the result of the examination, which was published on July 17, 1969 indicating the fact that the petitioner's result had been withheld, itself shows that it was so published under the approval of the Examinations Committee. The learned Advocate for the Board had further produced at the hearing the original resolution of the Examinations Committee whereby the aforesaid result was adopted and approved by the Examinations Committee. Again petitioner’s own assertion that the Examinations Committee had approved her result indicating that she had passed the examination had not properly been verified and no reliance can be placed on such statement nor is such assertion supported by the affidavits of respondents 7 and 10. The affidavit of respondent No. 9, on the other hand, clearly corroborates the case of the Board that the Examinations Committee had never approved or declared any such result in favour of the petitioner. On the other hand, according to the respondent No.9, the result of the petitioner was withheld on the decision of the Board. I refrain to go into the merits or otherwise of the allegations made by respondents 7 and 10 against the Board and its Secretary and the counter allegations thereto, as in my view, it would not be necessary to go into such disputes for the purpose of deciding the present case: even the said two respondents have not denied that whatever decision was taken in relation to petitioner's results was taken by the Examinations Committee and that it is the said Committee which revised the results. 13. Next I will go over to consider the second case made out in the application, namely, that the impugned decision was the result of malafide interference by the Secretary. There is no dispute that after revision by the Head Examiners and at the stage of tabulation the petitioner's marker on Mathematics, General Science and Sanskrit (third language) were respectively 30, 46 and 42. There is also no dispute that in the finally published mark-sheet, these marks are shown to be 22, 34 and 37 respectively. There is no controversy as regards the marks obtained by the petitioner on other subjects. There is also no dispute that in the finally published mark-sheet, these marks are shown to be 22, 34 and 37 respectively. There is no controversy as regards the marks obtained by the petitioner on other subjects. The petitioner Claims in paragraph 19 of the petition that the petitioner's father is an employee of the Board and President of the Employees' Union his further alleged in this paragraph that the petitioner's father had confrontation with the authorities for which he had incurred wrath and hostility from the authorities under the Board and particularly the respondent No.3, the Secretary. In paragraph 20 she had specifically stated that her final result, as approved by examinations Committee was interfered with by Secretary due to such hostility against her father. In paragraph 15 she had stated that under the orders of the Secretary, 8 marks were deducted from Mathematics, 12 marks from General Science and 5 marks from Sanskrit and this was done without the knowledge of the Examinations Committee. In paragraph 16 she has stated that the Secretary, respondent No.3. went to the length of requesting respondent No.7, the Head Examiner of the General Science, to deduct certain marks obtained by the petitioner on the subject but he refused. All these statements, if believed, clearly indicate that out of personal grudge or enmity, the Secretary of the Board went out of his way to interfere with the result of the petitioner so that she can be made to fail. The charges are undoubtedly serious but the question still remains haw far such allegations have been made out and how far are such allegations believable. The primary fact that weighs with the Court, is that all these statements, barring the statements made paragraph 19, are even prime facie not acceptable. All these statements have been verified to be true to information, the source whereof has not at all been disclosed in the verification. Therefore, in my view, even without looking into the answers to these allegations, this case of malafides is liable to be over-ruled even ex parte. On the contrary, the Secretary in the affidavits sworn by himself on February 24, 1970 has clearly denied all these allegations. Therefore, in my view, even without looking into the answers to these allegations, this case of malafides is liable to be over-ruled even ex parte. On the contrary, the Secretary in the affidavits sworn by himself on February 24, 1970 has clearly denied all these allegations. Next there are the affidavits by one of the members of the Examinations Committee and one of the Tabulators in addition to the one by the Deputy Secretary, all of which clearly indicate that relevant decisions in this regard were taken by the Examinations Committee. Further, the petitioner's case that the Secretary approached the Head Examiners with a request to deduct marks from the petitioner's and turning down such a request by respondent No.7, the Head Examiner of General Science, is also not supported even by the affidavit of respondent No.7. This respondent in his affidavit as also in his representation to the Board only stated that by a letter dated July 15, 1969 he was made to appear before the Secretary and when he met the Secretary, the Secretary only asked him as to whether he had enhanced the marks in respect of the two candidates including the petitioner. In his representation to the Board what this respondent objected to was the confrontation by the Secretary as to whether the enhancement made by him in respect of such candidates were well deserved or not. The Secretary in his affidavit has clearly stated under what circumstances, under orders of the President, he had to call for the Head Examiners. In my view no exception can be taken to the conduct of the Secretary in this respect. Neither this affidavit nor the representation of this respondent No.7 in any way supports the petitioner's case that the Secretary went out of his way to request the Head Examiners to deduct marks obtained by the petitioner. Apart from a board allegation that the petitioner's father incurred the enmity of the authorities of the Board because of confrontations as President of the Employees' Union, there are no particulars set out as to how and why such a responsible authority of the Board would come down so low as to victimize an innocent candidate because of some supposed enmity with the father. In view of these facts and circumstances, I am unable to accept the case of the petitioner that there was any interference with the result of the petitioner by any malafide act on the part of the respondent. 14. Two other points, however, have been every strongly contended for by Mr. Chakraborti in support of this Rule. According to him, upon the affidavits, there is no doubt that on the marks allotted by the Head Examiners the petitioner was eligible to be declared to have passed the disputed School Final Examination, but the Examinations Committee without necessary authority, revised the allotment of marks as passed out of the hands or the Head Examiners. There is no dispute that in three subjects of Mathematics, General Science and Sanskrit, the enhanced credit given by the respective Head Examiners was annulled by the Examinations Committee after those papers were subjected to fresh scrutiny by other experts appointed for the purpose by the Examinations Committee inasmuch as it was decided that the petitioner was not really entitled to such enhanced credit. According to Mr. Chakraborti this was beyond the powers of the said Committee. Mr. Chakraborti is conscious of the provisions of Section 21 (3) (d) referred to hereinbefore. But be contends that the said clause refers to the result as a whole and it does not confer any power on the Examinations Committee to adjudge the result of a particular examinee or to reassess the assessment as made by the Examiners or Head Examiners in respect of a particular candidate. It is however difficult to accept such a contention. After all under the statute the obligation to consider, approve and publish the results is vested in the Examinations Committee and the Examiners or the Head Examiners have no independent status or authority in the matter except as appointees of the Examinations Committee. Evaluation made by them becomes effective in law only when it is approved by the Examinations Committee. Even upon the argument advanced by Mr. Chakraborti, if the Examinations Committee has the authority to consider, approve and publish the results as a whole, I do not follow how are the individual results excluded from such consideration and approval by the Examinations Committee. Even upon the argument advanced by Mr. Chakraborti, if the Examinations Committee has the authority to consider, approve and publish the results as a whole, I do not follow how are the individual results excluded from such consideration and approval by the Examinations Committee. Further if and when the Examiners or the Head Examiners in making the evaluation act as the appointees there is no reason why the authority in whom the law vests the ultimate obligation and who appoints such Examiners and Head Examiners cannot sit in judgment over their evaluation. In my view to accept the contention of Mr. Chakraborti in this respect is to read into the statute a limitation which is not there either expressly or even by necessary implication. For these reasons, I consider this contention of Mr. Chakraborti to be of little substance. 15. Next point raised by Mr. Chakraborti is the only point of some importance in this Rule. Mr. Chakraborti contends that upon the affidavits filed on behalf of the Board and its authorities, it is abundantly clear that the Examinations Committee revised the result of the petitioner on the ground that the marks obtained by her in the hands of the Head Examiners were the result of improper manipulation which is nothing but a misconduct but such revision was made in gross violation of principles of natural justice inasmuch as she was never given any opportunity whatsoever to show cause or put forward her case on such a grave charge. Mr. Chakraborti relies on the two decisions of this Court in the case of (1) Dipa Pal v. University of Calcutta, AIR 1952 Calcutta 594 and (2) B.C. Das Gupta v. Bijoy Ranjan Rakshit, AIR 1953 Calcutta 212, which were approved by the Supreme Court in the case of (3) Board of High School and Intermediate Education, U. P. v. Ghanshyam Das Gupta, AIR 1962 SC 1110 . 16. It should however be noted that in each of the three decisions relied on by Mr. Chakraborti there was cancellation of the examination by way of penalty for adopting malpractice in course of the examination. 16. It should however be noted that in each of the three decisions relied on by Mr. Chakraborti there was cancellation of the examination by way of penalty for adopting malpractice in course of the examination. As a matter of fact in the case of (3) Board of High School v. Ghanshyam (Supra) the Supreme Court held that the Examination Committee while exercising its powers under Rule 1 (1) of the Chapter 4 of the Regulations to impose a penalty for misconduct in examination must be held to act judicially or quasi judicially, notwithstanding the fact that there was no express provision in the Regulations requiring the said committee to act as such. These decisions, in my view, are therefore clear authority for a proposition that where a body proceeds to impose some penalty on a finding as to guilt or misconduct, it must come to such finding necessarily by following the principles of natural justice. But the question still remains as to when such an obligation of affording at opportunity to show cause under the principles of natural justice should be implied. Not that such an obligation always arises. It is only where such an obligation is cast by the Statute or follows as a necessary implication from the statutory provisions that infringement thereof would vitiate the act of the authority. In my view, the act of evaluation of the answers and/or assessment of merits of the respective examinees does not require any any hearing or affording any opportunity to show cause by the candidate whether such evaluation or assessment is made for the first time or made on revision of assessments made by others. It is part of the subjective assessment by the body in who in the Statute has reposed the obligation. 17. Therefore, in order to decide the point raised by Mr. Chakraborti, I have first to decide that was the actual nature of the act of the Examinations Committee. Was it an act of awarding a penalty on any conclusion as to guilt or misconduct or was it an act of mere reevaluation and reassessment by the Examinations Committee if it is the former, the act must be struck down on the high authorities relied on by Mr. Chakraborti as admittedly there was no opportunity aforded to the petitioner. Was it an act of awarding a penalty on any conclusion as to guilt or misconduct or was it an act of mere reevaluation and reassessment by the Examinations Committee if it is the former, the act must be struck down on the high authorities relied on by Mr. Chakraborti as admittedly there was no opportunity aforded to the petitioner. If however the act falls into the second category, my considered view is that the respondents had never any obligation to afford any opportunity to show cause and as such the act cannot be assailed. 18. The two affidavits filed on behalf of the Board respectively by the Deputy Secretary and the Secretary make it clear that the Examinations Committee on a prior information that some candidates, including the present petitioner had adopted unfair means of illegally approaching the Head Examiners before publication of results for securing illegal advantage, withheld their results. Thereafter under the orders of the President, who is also the Chairman of the Examinations Committee, certain enquiries were made including enquiries from the Head Examiners of the respective three subjects of Mathematics, General Science and Sanskrit. It further appears that on such confidential enquiry a report was submitted obviously to indicate that the enhancements made by the Head Examiners were not duly made. It appears from paragraph 12 of the affidavit filed by the Secretary that in such enquiry there was even clear admission by some of these Head Examiners that enhancements were made unduly. That led the Examinations Committee to a decision that these answer scripts of the petitioner on the three subjects should be reevaluated by some other independent authority. Such scripts were then sent to eminent educationists for the purpose of reevaluation. The reevaluation made by these independent authorities led to a conclusion that the evaluation made by the Examiners was proper and the enhancements made by the Head Examiners were not justified. Mr. Chatterjee appearing on behalf of the Board had produced for my perusal the answer scripts of Mathematics and the evaluation thereof as such by the eminent educationists though he could not disclose at the trial the said documents which are of a confidential character, I have satisfied myself beyond any doubt that the conclusions arrived at by these educationists were not only unanimous but also quite honest and reasonable. The other two papers on the General Science and Sanskrit are not of so such importance inasmuch as notwithstanding the reevaluation, the petitioner has secured such marks in these papers as would entitle her to be declared passed. She has failed only because of the insufficiency of the marks obtained in Mathematics. It appears from the said two affidavits that it is only on the basis of the aforesaid reevaluation by an independent authority that the Examinations Committee finalized the result of the petitioner and came to the conclusion that the petitioner must be deemed to have failed in one subject which would entitle her to appear in the Compartmental Examination. 19. On these facts I am of the view that although the authorities started on a report of misconduct and actually withheld the result for the time being for such misconduct they have not proceeded in disciplinary jurisdiction. They might have gone into the question as to whether there was improper influence by or on behalf of the petitioner on Head Examiners but that was for the limited purpose of deciding as to whether the answer scripts should be reevaluated or not. It is true that it would have been equally open to the said authority to proceed in disciplinary jurisdiction and impose any penalty authorised by the statute including the one of cancellation of results on such misconduct and if they had chosen to proceed in that way it would have been necessary for them to afford an opportunity to the petitioner to show cause. But when they decided not to proceed in disciplinary jurisdiction but only to exercise their own powers of considering the result and in so considering to have it reevaluated by an independent authority to find out what should be the proper value of the answers, they have only acted in exercise of powers which the statute has left absolutely to their own subjective decision. They have neither acted dishonesly nor have they acted unreasonably on the facts of the present case and as such their assessment is beyond judicial review. 20. This being the position there was no necessity, in my view, to afford any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and the authorities in coming to their conclusions in the matter of finalising petitioner's result cannot be said to have acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. 20. This being the position there was no necessity, in my view, to afford any opportunity to the petitioner to show cause and the authorities in coming to their conclusions in the matter of finalising petitioner's result cannot be said to have acted in violation of the principles of natural justice. It is now well settled that such authorities as the Board of Secondary Education so long as they act within their powers, the court should be very cautious in interfering with their decisions as their decisions are not open to judicial review except on very limited grounds and never too lightly. Reference may be made to the decisions of the Supreme Court in the case of (4) University of Mysore v. Gobinda Rao, AIR 1965 SC 491 (96) and (5) Principal. Patna College v. K. Raman, 1966 (1) S. C. A. 618. It should further be noted that at least in two cases the Supreme Court went to the length of upholding even cancellation of results when such cancellation was made without any prior opportunity to show cause being given in the cases of (6) Vice-Chancellor of Utkal University v. S. K. Ghosh and others, AIR 1954 SC 217 and (7) Bihar School Examination Board v. Subhas Chandra Sinha (C.A. 2620 of 1969 disposed of on 25.2. 70-since reported in AIR 1970 SC 1269 -Ed.) 21. Lastly Mr. Chakraborti has contended that under the rules as set out on the back of the mark-sheet, a copy whereof is annexed to the petition marked as annexure D, it was necessary that when the petitioner had failed in one subject, her paper in that subject was required to be re-examined and as that was not done the final decision is not in accordance with those Rules. Mr. Chakraborti, however, bas not been able to satisfy this court as to whether such Rule has got any statutory force so that its infringement may result in the decision being declared illegal. Further, in my view, the said Rules have no application in a case like the present one where the ultimate decision is arrived at only after re-examination. That Rule only requires that normally where an examinee is found to be failing in one subject there should be re-examination of that subject so as to prevent any possible mistake. Further, in my view, the said Rules have no application in a case like the present one where the ultimate decision is arrived at only after re-examination. That Rule only requires that normally where an examinee is found to be failing in one subject there should be re-examination of that subject so as to prevent any possible mistake. But that can have no obvious application in cases like the present one where such papers are subjected to special scrutiny by not less than three other experts after the re-examination by the Head Examiner. 22. On the conclusions as above, all the contentions raised on behalf of the petitioner must fail and this Rule must be discharged. 23. Although I have come to the conclusion that this Rule must be discharged as in law the petitioner is not entitled to any of the reliefs prayed for from this Court, I cannot but express my strong resentment to one part of the conduct of the respondents in not finalising the result of the petitioner with due diligence and with due sense of responsibility, the result has been very unfortunate for the candidate. In the present case the general result was published on July 17, 1969 but the authorities could not come to any final decision as regards the petitioner before August 13, 1969 nor did they communicate such result to the petitioner prior to August 21, 1969, while the last date for putting in the fees for the Compartmental Examination expired on July 30, 1969 and such examination itself was due on August 29, 1969. I have no manner of doubt that the respondents filed to act with due responsibility and they are certainly guilty of inordinate delay in finalising the result of the petitioner. It is true that the respondents extended the time for putting in the fees but that in my view it was a poor consolation because the examination itself was due to be held on August 29, 1969. In answer to the complaint made by the petitioner that the inordinate delay in finalising her result had led to a position whereby she lost the opportunity even to appear in the Compartmental examination, the Deputy Secretary, Amalendu Gupta, has stated in paragraph 14 of his affidavit that it was for the petitioner to get herself acquainted ab0ut her results. In answer to the complaint made by the petitioner that the inordinate delay in finalising her result had led to a position whereby she lost the opportunity even to appear in the Compartmental examination, the Deputy Secretary, Amalendu Gupta, has stated in paragraph 14 of his affidavit that it was for the petitioner to get herself acquainted ab0ut her results. In my view, however, there can be nothing more uncharitable than that and that too on the part of a responsible officer of the Board. A candidate cannot be acquainted with her result unless the authorities finalise and publish the same. In the present case reported quaries were made to the Board on behalf of the petitioner about the result but without any reply. The result itself was not finalised before August 13, 1969 and then it was so communicated that it never reached her prior to August 21, 1969. The authorities should have been conscious of their responsibility and should have known that extraordinary circumstance esrequire extraordinary steps to be taken. In my view, not only the finalisation could have been made much too earlier, the communication itself could have been made in course of a day even from August 13, 1969 if the authorities were conscious of their responsibility. This court would only expect that the appropriate authorities would conduct themselves with a sense of better responsibility on occasions like this hereafter. Such irregularity, however, would not afford any ground to this Court to grant any relief to the petitioner from this court in this jurisdiction. I would, however, disallow any costs in favour of the respondents though they otherwise succeed. 24. This Rule is, accordingly, dischared. There will be no order as to costs.