ORDER D.P.S. Chauhan, J. 1. Petitioner Ku. Archana Varde appeared in the B.Sc. (Part III) Examination held in the year 1990 as a regular student having Roll No. 12348 from Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar. Subjects taken by her were physics, Chemistry and Pure Mathematics. In the examination held she was declared as successful, but she could not catch height of acquiring First Class in the B.Sc. Examination as her First Class fall short by two marks. There has been error in the question No. 7(b) in the First Paper of Pure Mathematics (Linear Algebra), which question she attempted as is stated in paragraph 6 of the petition, but she could not succeed in arriving to the answer as shown in the question No. 7(b) of the question paper. The question No. 7(b) is as extracted below : "7(b) prove that a2 a2 - (b-c)2 bC = (b-c) (c-a) (a-b) b2 b2 - (c-a)2 ca (a+b+c) (ab+bc+ca) c2 c2 - (a-b)2 ab and the student was supposed to prove that what is given on the left hand side was equal to the right hand side. The correct question is also supplied by the petitioner by way of Annexure A-5. 2. The counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent and the affidavit is sworn by Dr. Krishnaji Tiwari, alleging himself to be the Registrar of Dr. Hari Singh Gour Vishwavidyalaya, Sagar. The allegations are said to be correct on the basis of the record. The record does not disclose as to which was the record, on the basis of which the allegations were sworn. Annexure A-5 to the petition which was a representation made to the Vice- Chancellor of the University has not been denied and the same is admitted. It has not been denied that the question-answer mentioned in Annexure A-5 to the petition was not correct. It is also not denied that even guardians of some of the students filed representations before the Vice-Chancellor. The allegation has been made in paragraph 3 of the petition that as the very sum of the question was incorrect, solution of the question became impossible. It is also not denied that even guardians of some of the students filed representations before the Vice-Chancellor. The allegation has been made in paragraph 3 of the petition that as the very sum of the question was incorrect, solution of the question became impossible. This fact in paragraph 3 of the counter affidavit has not been replied, rather the matter is twisted that it is not possible at this stage to verify whether the petitioner or many other students attempted Question No. 7(b) and tried to solve it or that it consumed a considerable time. The words "at this stage" is used. What is the meaning of word "at this stage" has not been disclosed. So far as the fact regarding the wrong question-answer is concerned, that is established. The fact regarding the representation immediately made to the Vice- Chancellor of the said University has also not been denied. The University authorities were well aware regarding the error in the question-answer and on detection of such mistake, the authorities were supposed to take immediate remedial measure so to avoid injustice being caused to the students as the University, so far as the students are concerned, is a place where they learn fairness and decency. Here in the present case the University authorities have violated both fairness and decency on their part. The Registrar, who has filed the affidavit, has given reply in an evasive manner and not only this, the Registrar has not used decent language in paragraph 6 of the return, which is to the following effect : "6. As stated above it was not compulsory for the petitioner to solve question No. 7(b) and if she attempted the same she should thank herself for the same." It is not a proper language and specially the Registrar of the University is not supposed to use such a teasing language. University is a place where the students learn manners, discipline, language, behaviour and also learn the dignity. Improper language reflects the quality of the person. It is a language which is violative of the dignity. The Constitution under Article 21 has protected the dignity of the citizen. Registrar was a teacher possessed of Degree of Doctorate. He was supposed to be little decent in his language. Improper language reflects the quality of the person. It is a language which is violative of the dignity. The Constitution under Article 21 has protected the dignity of the citizen. Registrar was a teacher possessed of Degree of Doctorate. He was supposed to be little decent in his language. He has not even taken care that how such a language could be useful to him or to the case or was befitting the dignity of the Institution where he is serving. 3. Learned counsel for the respondent could not come out with any satisfactory defence and could not explain the fairness on the part of the University except objecting that the petition was filed late and submitted that the answer books have been destroyed. It cannot be a valid defence. The University got the knowledge about the question being wrong, if not earlier, than, when students protested to the Vice-Chancellor. Subsequently by means of Annexure-A/5 students and guardians of the students in writing represented to the Vice-Chancellor and the matter was in the knowledge of the Registrar, then in all fairness such copies should not have been destroyed. No provision has been shown to the Court under which the copies are to be destroyed. Apart from this, the fairness on the part of the University requires that having come to know about the error in the question-answer some remedial measure should have been taken, such as those students who have attempted that question i.e. question No. 7(b) should have been awarded full five marks, as it is a settled principle that the students cannot be allowed to suffer for the mistake of the University. 4. In view of above, the writ petition deserves to be allowed. Since the conduct of the University was not fair, as was expected, it is a case where costs has to be awarded. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to be paid by the University to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Five marks as allotted to question No. 7(b) are allowed to the petitioner. The writ petition is accordingly allowed with a cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five thousand) to be paid by the University to the petitioner within a period of three months from the date of presentation of a certified copy of this order. Five marks as allotted to question No. 7(b) are allowed to the petitioner. The respondent-University is directed to issue fresh corrected mark- sheet to the petitioner adding five marks of that question in the paper of Pure Mathematics within a period of three weeks from the date of presentation of certified copy of this order.