JUDGMENT D. P. Sood, J.—Petitioner, a minor, aged 9 years, student of third Class appeared in the annual examination, He was declared fait as per the result sheet prepared by the third respondent who was at the relevant time Principal/Head Master, Government Primary School Jaterh, P. O. Kamand, Tehsil Ani, District Kullu. 2. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner assailed the result by way of this Writ Petition and sought reliefs that he be declared pass* and ordered to be promoted to the next class, apart from payment of compensation for mental agony, torture and humiliation faced by him. 3. Shortly stated, the facts are that petitioner was the student of third class The result of the annual examination in which he appeared, was declared on 24th December, 1992 by the third respondent The allegations made are that the third respondent had strained relations with the family of the petitioner and as such on account of mala fide intention and ill-will, he (third respondent) intentionally declared the petitioner as fail9 and contrary to the instructions issued by the department. 4. Respondents No. 1 and 2 on the basis of the affidavit of Dr. A. R. Basu, Director of Primary Education, Himachal Pradesh, have contended that they made an attempt to verify the result by obtaining the answer-sheets of the petitioner to get it re-checked. However, the answer-sheets could not be sent by respondent No 3 to them because it is stated to have been destroyed as per Annexure R-2, which is a letter sent by respondent No. 3 in his own hand and under his signatures. 5. Respondent No. 3 has contested the petition on the grounds that the result had been declared on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner. He specifically denied the oblique motive as alleged. He, however, admitted that the answer-sheets of the petitioner alongwith other answer-sheets of the students examined, have been destro} ed. However respondent No» 3 admitted that an enquiry through Shri Dhani Ram Katoch, B P. E O (Block Primary Education Officer) was conducted on 9-3-1993 who directed him orally to promote the petitioner to fourth class. As there was no such orders passed by the Enquiry Officer in writing respondent No 3 admits to have refused to comply with the orders of the promotion of the petitioner. 6. As there was no such orders passed by the Enquiry Officer in writing respondent No 3 admits to have refused to comply with the orders of the promotion of the petitioner. 6. We have heard learned Counsel for the petitioner and Shri C. L Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General at length. We have also seen the instructions relating to the criteria for promotion in the annual promotion examination pertaining to primary classes and other records including the result-sheets Needless to re-state the allegations and counter allegations, suffice it to state that criteria for promotion in the second and third classes as per the instructions issued by the second respondent (Director of Education) is in the following words: "CRITERIA FOR PROMOTION INT THE ANNUAL PROMOTION EXAMINATION." "2nd and 3rd—-The basis of promotion in the 2nd and 3rd classes will be the performance of the students in periodical tests (minimum six) in each subject, provided that the child gets 33% marks in each subject or 35% in aggregate. There will be no formal annual examination or terminal examination..” 7. From the pleadings of the parties, it appears that there had been an annual examination of the students of third class and third respondent has not complied with the instructions which could form the basis of promotion of the students to the next higher class as provided above. The result sheet even does not show that the instructions pertaining to second and third classes with respect to promotion to the higher classes have been followed. In other words, we find that the result sheets have not been based upon the performance of the students of third class in minimum six-periodical tests. This fact by itself is sufficient for setting aside the declaration of result of the petitioner. 8 Apart from it, we find that during the enquiry conducted by Block Primary Education Officer on 9-3-1993, he also directed the promotion of the petitioner to the next higher class but that was not complied with Answer-sheets were re-checked by him and that was, in fact, the basis for doing so. 8 Apart from it, we find that during the enquiry conducted by Block Primary Education Officer on 9-3-1993, he also directed the promotion of the petitioner to the next higher class but that was not complied with Answer-sheets were re-checked by him and that was, in fact, the basis for doing so. It was later that the answer sheets of the petitioner as also of other students had been destroyed by the third respondent and it was not kept in safe custody knowing fully well that a controversy had arisen, The non-keeping of the record in safe-custody despite the existence of disputes regarding such like matters, by a responsible officer, is deplorable. From the perusal of the marks sheet, we find that non-compliance of the instructions by the third respondent, particularly in the instant case, has marred the career of many students who are pillars of the nation, Their academic career has been damaged by one year for carelessness on the part of the Education Department particularly when it was brought to their knowledge, as soon as on 9-3-1993, The Education Department has not been vigilant in this behalf to issue fresh instructions to the District Education Officer/Block Education Officer or Heads of the High/Primary Schools (Government and Private Recognised Schools) on the basis of the existing one to be vigilant in future in respect of the declaration of the result. This observation we have made keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case wherein 12 students on the same basis, for non-compliance of the specific instructions laying down the criteria for promotion in the annual promotion examination, have been declared as "fail". We hope that in future the Education Department would be extremely vigilant and it would have strict control and supervision over the working of its subordinate staff. We, however, expect that—keeping in view the peculiar facts and circumstances of the instant case, a departmental action would be taken against the third respondent. 9. Before parting with the instant case, we may observe that the academic career of the petitioner has been saved by his provisional admission under the orders of this Court, otherwise he would have also met the same fate as that of his twelve colleagues. 9. Before parting with the instant case, we may observe that the academic career of the petitioner has been saved by his provisional admission under the orders of this Court, otherwise he would have also met the same fate as that of his twelve colleagues. He has claimed compensation for this but keeping in view that he has approached this Court and got the orders with regard to the provisional admission in the next higher class, we do not propose to award any compensation to him. 10. In view of the discussion made above, we accept the petition and direct the respondents to promote the petitioner to fourth class as a regular student after declaring his result within a week as per the rules. We further hold the petitioner entitled to costs of Rs. 550. The petition stands disposed of in terms of the above. Petition allowed. -