JUDGMENT : A.K. Padhi, J. - The Petitioner was a candidate for the Annual High School Certificate Examimtion, 1989. When the results were out, to his dismay he found that though he has got First Division, he has got only 41 marks out of 100 marks in third language Sanskrit compulsory. Immediately after he obtained the mark-sheet, he applied for re-checking his marks in third language (Sanskrit compulsory paper) which is permissible under the Board's Regulation-45. As he was not favoured with an early reply, he approached this Court to ventilate his grievance and prayed for a writ of mandamus to direct the Board (opp. Party No. 1) to re-check and publish the correct marks awarded to the Petitioner in the said examination. 2. The Board filed a preliminary counter in a callous manner, pleading therein that though the Petitioner has applied for re-checking, still the writ is premature as the time for application for re-checking was not over by the time the writ application was filed. This Court directed the opp. Party No. 1, the Board on 17-7-1983 for production of the answer paper and also directed it to take instructions. On 24-7-1989, the learned advocate appearing for opposite party No. 1 submitted that on re-checking it has been found that the Petitioner had obtained 91 marks instead of 41 marks. The learned advocate for the opposite party No. 1 was directed to file a counter explaining the circumstances under which a wrong mark list was issued to the Petitioner. On 26-7-1989 a counter affidavit was filed by opp. Party No. 1 indicating that mistake was committed by the Assistant Examiner, the Chief Examiner and the Scrutiniser while transcribing the marks from the examination paper to the mark foil. On 26-7-1989 this Court directed the opposite party No. 1 to publish the position secured by the Petitioner in the examination by taking into account the correct marks obtained by him in the third language Sanskrit paper and also to supply a correct mark list to the Petitioner, which has been complied with. The prayer of the Petitioner regarding the publication of the correct mark list was thus allowed by interim order. The prayer of the Petitioner regarding the publication of the correct mark list was thus allowed by interim order. The Petitioner was permitted to implead the Assistant Examiner, the Chief Examiner and the Scrutiniser as parties due to whose callousness the Petitioner had suffered and subsequent on 4-8-1989 Sri Syam Sundar Panda, Chief Examiner, Sri Gunawan Tripathy, Assistant Examiner and Sri Gauranga Charan Sahu, Scrutiniser of the relevant answer paper were impleaded as opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 respectively and notices were issued to them. This Court also allowed the prayer for amendment of the prayer portion including therein the prayer for awarding compensation in favour of the Petitioner and to take deterrent action against the opposite parties for their negligence. The subsisting prayers are (1) for awarding the compensation; and (2) for taking deterrent action against the opposite parties for their negligence as correct result indicating the position of the Petitioner was published and revised mark list was issued in favour of the Petitioner in compliance to interim direction of the Court. 3. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the Petitioner should be compensated for the pain and anguish he had gone through as his position in the Board Examination was not correctly reflected when the original result was published and also for deprivation of medals and cash awards due to the callous action of the opposite parties 3, 4 and 5. To our querry as to what action has been taken by the opposite party No. 1 for such careless action against opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 to our utter dismay, we were informed that not only the present opposite parties 3, 4 and 5 committed such mistakes, but such mistakes were detected in about 265 cases. The opposite party No. 1 filed an affidavit that all such Chief Examiners, Assistant Examiners and Scrutiniser for whose fault mark lists had been issued have been debarred from examinership for two chances. After the valuation of the answer papers thousand of applications were filed before the Board either for re-valuation or for re-checking the marks. There, has been great clamour for the system of valuation and this clamour of the students is justified by the statement of the learned. Advocate that 265 cases of wrong awarding of marks were detected by the Board itself. There, has been great clamour for the system of valuation and this clamour of the students is justified by the statement of the learned. Advocate that 265 cases of wrong awarding of marks were detected by the Board itself. If having regard to the circumstances, the marks had been properly checked by competent and honest examiners then the innocent students would not have suffered. It is only a few percentage of students who applied for re-checking and out of that 265 cases have come within the notice of the Board which shows such injustice to many students most probably have gone - unnoticed for their having not applied for, re-checking being satisfied with the bona fide of the Chief Examiners Assistant Examiners and Scrutinisers. In this case, the Petitioner, a brilliant boy, was entitled to be within the best ten students and entitled to a medal awarded by the prajatantra and also some cash prizes which he has been deprived of. Though I agree that the awarding of penalty under Clause 43 of the Regulation is within the exclusive jurisdiction of opposite party No. 1 still the penalty imposed by the Board is too lenient. Two cases have come to our notice i.e. O.J.C. No 1118 of 1990 decided on 13-4-1990 and O.J.C. No. 1285 of 1990 decided on 25-4-1930 wherein the Board had imposed penalty debarring from examinership the careless examiners for life. Though the penalties in those cases were set aside because of non observance of natural justice prior to the award of the penalties, yet it is to be noted that the Court never found fault with the penalties themselves, but only with the procedure of inflicting it. The penalties shows that the Board In appropriate cases have thought it fit to award such abstinent penalties. 4. Opposite party No. 3 has come up with a clean hand and has expressed his regret for the mistake. Opposite party No. 4, the Assistant Examiner has done the mud-slinging in his counter-affidavit stating that the Head-Examiner transcribed the marks from the answer papers to the mark foil which he only signed. The Scrutiniser has squarely shifted the responsibility to the Head Examiner. Opposite party No. 4, the Assistant Examiner has done the mud-slinging in his counter-affidavit stating that the Head-Examiner transcribed the marks from the answer papers to the mark foil which he only signed. The Scrutiniser has squarely shifted the responsibility to the Head Examiner. According to the instructions to the Chief Examiners, AssistantExaminers and the Scrutinisers, the duty of the Scrutiniser is as follows: The Scrutiniser shall be responsible to the Chief Examiner and all work done by him should be kept strictly confidential. Under the heading instructions for transcription of the mark on the mark foils (indicating that is important) the instruction reads as follows; x x x x (ix) After transcribing and putting the signature, the Assistant Examiner would pass it on to the Chief Examiner who would himself check the entry of marks in mark foils. If the mark foil contains some' other roll numbers, whose answer papers are being valued by another Assistant Examiner then the Chief Examiner would hand it over to him/her for entering the remaining marks in the manner as stated before. Regarding the re-checking of the mark foil the instruction is: When the Assistant Examiners return the answer papers along with the mark foils duly filled in the Chief Examiner would get the answer papers arranged serially symbolwise and roll numberwise with the help of the Scrutinisers. When the answer papers are so arranged the Chief Examiner, with the help of the Scrutinisers would compare the marks on the answer books with the marks on the mark foil. Any mistake observed would then be corrected. The Examiners whose mark foil is found containing the error is to, be warned on the following day. After re-checking of the mark foil he would countersign them and arrange them Centre symbol wise serially for submission. From these instructions, it is clear that the Assistant Examiner is to transcribe the marks from the answer papers to the marks foil and the Head Examiner with the help of the Scrutiniser is to cheek the mark scroll transcribed by the Assistant Examiner from the answer papers to the mark scroll From the instructions of the Board, it is very clear that Assistant Examiners have the initial responsibilities of transcribing the marks from the answer papers to the mark-scroll, the Head Examiners and the Scrutinisers are to check the marks as transcribed. It is unfortunate that the Assistant Examiner, whose initial duty was to transcribe the marks has filed the counter affidavit that it was the Chief Examiner who transcribed the marks from the answer papers to the mark scroll and he blindly signed in the mark scroll. It is unfortunate that the person who has the responsibility of educating and shaping the young mind of the students not only behaved in such callous manner but also filed such unacceptable affidavits before the Court. The Scrutiniser who had equal responsibility to check the mark has tried to shift responsibility to the shoulder of the Chief Examiner thereby proving that he was unfit to shoulder the responsibility of a Scrutiniser. In this case though I am of the opinion that the penalty imposed on all the examiners is too lenient, still I do not propose to suggest any other penalty as in other cases which ale not before this Court, the Head Examiners. Assistant Examiners and the Scrutinisers who were equally negligent have been let off with a lenient penalty. 5. It has been brought to our notice that Regulation 45 prescribes a time limit for applying or checking and re-addition of the marks. But it does not prescribe as to within how many days the authorities are to dispose such applications. Urgent applications are made under Regulation 45 for re-addition/re-checking with the intention to apply for higher studies. If the authority will take a long time to depose of the applications, the students who are entitled to higher marks may be deprived of getting admission to any faculty or higher education due to keen competition, Hence, I am of the opinion that the Board should dispose of the applications within a reasonable time preferably within a fortnight of the date of the application. Suitable amendments are directed to be made in the Regulations to that effect. It would be pertinent to observe here that when large scale wrong tabulation is brought to the not ice of the Board, the Board should be cautious to verify the marks not only where applications have been made but also take sample cases where applications have not been made to know the magnitude of such mistakes. However, we do not propose to make any direction to that effect. 6. The next prayer of the Petitioner is for compensation. However, we do not propose to make any direction to that effect. 6. The next prayer of the Petitioner is for compensation. After re-checking, the merit list of annual H.S.C. Examination, 1989 was published vide Notification No. 9496 dated 24th October, 1989 vide Annexure-9. In the said fist it is clear that the Petitioner has come up within the best ten students i.e. he has secured the 8th position in the Board Examination though he is at serial No. 11 as two students have got the 5th position and three students had got the 6th position. The Petitioner has filed an affidavit stating that apart from the mental agony, humiliation, the Petitioner also sustained loss as he was deprived of getting the medal and the cash prize given by the Prajatantra Prachar Samiti. A student labours day and night to get a position in the Board Examination so as to have a strong foothold for the future. A cash prize or medal boosts the moral of a student. Deprivation of a cash prize and medal in token of acknowledging the merit of a student cannot be valued in terms of money. 7. In Smt. Kalawati and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh and Another, compensation was awarded when a patient died due to the negligence of the doctors. In A.S. Mittal and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others, the Supreme Court awarded damages and directed the State Government to pay for the irreversible damages to the eyes in the eye camp. In R. Gandhi and Others Vs. Union of India (UOI) and Another, their lordships took the view that for redressal of public injury caused by arson and looting in wake of assassination of Prime Minister Smt. Gandhi, the victims are entitled to reasonable compensation. 8. In this case since the Petitioner did not get the cash prize due to callous action of the opp. parties 3, 4 and 5, I am of the opinion that he is entitled to a compensation of Rs. 1,200.00 (Rupees one thousand and two hundred) payable by opp. party No. 3, the Head Examiner, opp. party No. 4, the Assistant Examiner and opp. party No. 5 the Scrutiniser equally i.e. Rs. 400,00 (Rupees four hundred) each who are directed to make the payment to the Petitioner through the learned Counsel appearing for him within two months from today. 1,200.00 (Rupees one thousand and two hundred) payable by opp. party No. 3, the Head Examiner, opp. party No. 4, the Assistant Examiner and opp. party No. 5 the Scrutiniser equally i.e. Rs. 400,00 (Rupees four hundred) each who are directed to make the payment to the Petitioner through the learned Counsel appearing for him within two months from today. It is needless to say that the Petitioner w ill be entitled to receive all Scholarship etc. on the basis of his new marks and position. 9. While parting I also observe that opp. party No. 1 be more careful while selecting the Chief Examiners, Assistant Examiners and the Scrutinisers and be little mindful towards the fate of young children who are the future of the Nation. With the above observation, the writ application is allowed. As regards to costs the Petitioner is entitled to Rs. 1,000.00 (Rupees one thousand). The cost shall be borne by the Board, opposite party No. 1. A copy of this judgment may be communicated to the Secretary, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa, Cuttack who is directed to take necessary remedial measures to avoid recurrence of such callous mistakes by the examining bodies. L. Rath, J. 10. I agree. Final Result : Allowed