O. P. GARG, J. ( 1 ) IT is an unfortunate case where a brilliant student of Post Graduate class has been tossing about to ventilate his legitimate grievance. All the entreaties made by him had fallen flat on the deaf ears of the swollen headed authorities of the concerned college and University. A brilliant student who should have devoted his time and energy to prepare for his examination in cool and calm atmosphere was driven unnecessarily to take recourse to legal proceedings as the authorities had adopted a recalcitrant and obdurate attitude to persist in their adamancy in not allowing the petitioner to appear in the examination. These remarks are more on account of anguish rather than anger which may well be conceived in the backdrop of the following facts. ( 2 ) RAJESH Kumar who has been throughout the first class student having secured first division in high School, Intermediate and B. Sc. examinations, appeared in entrance lest for admission in m. Sc. for the academic session 1995-96 conducted by Sahuji Maharaj University (Kanpur university ). The petitioner became eligible for admission as he was declared successful in the entrance test and accordingly he was allotted D. A. V. Degree College, Kanpur where he took admission in M. Sc. (Previous) in Botany discipline on 19th October, 1995. On that date he deposited the requisite fee of the college including the examination fee. He also submitted the examination form. A green card for attending the classes in M. Sc. (Previous) Botany was issued by the College to the petitioner. The petitioner all ended theory and practical classes regularly and at the end of the session, he was issued clearance slip by the College, which was indicative of the fact that no dues were outstanding against him and that he has deposited the examination fee and has submitted the examination form. The University examinations were scheduled to take place from 10. 4. 1996. Admission card was not issued to the petitioner and on enquiry, he was informed by the Principal of the College that his examination form had been sent to the university. The petitioner was in a fix and having left with no alternative, had to rush to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur by filing Suit No. 714 of 1996 in which by order dated 8,4. 1996. The petitioner was in a fix and having left with no alternative, had to rush to the court of Civil Judge (Junior Division), Kanpur by filing Suit No. 714 of 1996 in which by order dated 8,4. 1996. he was allowed to appear in the examination, of course, subject to decision of the suit. ( 3 ) THE agony of the petitioner did noi end here. The result of the M. Sc. (Previous) Botany examination was not declared and the petitioner had again to obtain the order of the Civil Judge (Junior Division) on 15. 10. 1995 in pursuance of which the result was declared which showed that the petitioner passed the examination and had secured 60% marks in the aggregate. ( 4 ) AFTER the declaration of the result, the petitioner approached the Principal D. A. V. College to allow him admission in the M. Sc. (Final) class but for no obvious reasons, he was denied this benefit also. The petitioner again moved an application in Suit No. 774 of 1996 for orders of the court to permit him to pursue his studies in M. Sc. (Final) class but his case did not find favour with the Court on the ground that the purpose for which the suit was filed, has been achieved and the application for admission to M. Sc. (Final) class is beyond the scope of the relief sought and accordingly, the application was rejected on 24. 2. 1997. Helpless, as the petitioner was, he. had to rush to this Court by filing the present writ petition in which an interim order was passed on 28. 2. 1997. It was directed that the Principal D. A. V. College. Kanpur shall forward the examination form of the petitioner lo Kanpur University and he shall be allowed to appear in the ensuing M. Sc, (Final) Botany examination and. if any, practical examination has taken place, in which he could not appear, then the University shall make necessary arrangements so that the petitioner appears in M. Sc. (Final) Botany examination at some other college where such practical examination is yet to take place, ( 5 ) THE original relief claimed in the present writ petition has become infructuous as the purpose has been achieved by the passing of interim order. The pelitioner has moved an application on 2. 4. (Final) Botany examination at some other college where such practical examination is yet to take place, ( 5 ) THE original relief claimed in the present writ petition has become infructuous as the purpose has been achieved by the passing of interim order. The pelitioner has moved an application on 2. 4. 1998 in which it was prayed that the respondent-University be directed lo declare the result of the petitioner of M. Sc. Bolany (Final ). Thereafter, application for amendment was also moved in which a prayer was made that the respondcnl-Universily be commanded lo pay rupees one lac lo the petitioner as compensation. ( 6 ) THIS petition was filed after giving notice to Sri. J. N. Verma. learned standing counsel lor the respondent-University. The copy of the petition was served on him on 26. 3. 1997 and at the time of passing of the inlerim order on 28. 2. 1997. Sri Vcrma was also heard. Copies of all the applications moved in this petition were made over to Sri Verma. The respondent-University, therefore, had full knowledge of the progress of this writ petition but for the reasons which are hidden in the penumbral zone, far away from judicial scrutiny, no counter-affidavit has been filed. The averments made by the petitioner. therefore, stand unrcbutted. ( 7 ) HEARD Sri. P. S. Baghel. learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri J. N. Verma, learned counsel for the respondent-University at some length. ( 8 ) IT is an indubitable fact that the petitioner is a brilliant student, inasmuch as he has a good academic record, having passed his all the examinations in First Division. He has been successful in the entrance test for admission to M. Sc. (Previous) year--Botany, and was duly admitted in D. A. V. Degree College, Kanpur. It has also not been disputed that the petitioner had cleared all the dues and had completed the formalities to appear in the examination. Here again, for the reasons best known to the University, admit card was not issued to the petitioner and. therefore, he had to run from pillar to post to enable himself to appear in the examination. The petitioner was a bona fide student and in the normal course, he should have been extended all possible facilities to appear in the M. Sc. (Previous) examination. therefore, he had to run from pillar to post to enable himself to appear in the examination. The petitioner was a bona fide student and in the normal course, he should have been extended all possible facilities to appear in the M. Sc. (Previous) examination. In spite of the order of the civil court that the petitioner shall not be prevented from appearing in the examination, the University did not declare the result of the petitioner and he had to obtain another order for the declaration of his M. Sc. (Previous] result. The petitioner was also not permitted to take admission in M. Sc. (Final) year, and to appear in the examination thereof. He had to take shelter of this Court for the purpose. A bright and brilliant student, who otherwise was required to devote his time and energy to pursue his studies, was unnecessarily made to run helter-skelter to obtain Court orders which process by itself is quite expensive and time-consuming. The respondents have not been able even to faintly suggest as to what was the fault of the petitioner. The fact that the respondents have not filed counter-affidavit speaks volumes against the university-administration and. therefore, rugged truthfulness of the averments made by the petitioner cannot be doubted or disbelieved. The petitioner was pestered, harassed and nagged absolutely for no rhyme or reason. The respondents did not feel contented by so much of harassment caused to the petitioner but they persisted in their obduracy not declaring his M. Sc. (Final) result. ( 9 ) IT appears that in the instant case, the authorities have not realised the impact of their callousness. The educational authorities are expected to conduct themselves in an impartial and highly objeetive manner. They cannot pass on the legitimate complaints of the Students as being the result of oversight nor can they seek to be exonerated of their responsibility of permitting the bona fide student to appear in the examination and declare result. The authorities cannot and should not adopt a casual approach in dealing with the grievance of the students. Inaction, indifference or lack of earnestness on the part of the authorities have not been tolerated by courts because of the adverse effects on the career of the students. ( 10 ) THERE is no doubt about the fact that the petitioner has appeared in M. Sc. (Final) examination as a bona fide student. Inaction, indifference or lack of earnestness on the part of the authorities have not been tolerated by courts because of the adverse effects on the career of the students. ( 10 ) THERE is no doubt about the fact that the petitioner has appeared in M. Sc. (Final) examination as a bona fide student. There is no impediment in the declaration of the result of the said examination. ( 11 ) NOW the question is whether the petitioner in the present writ petition, under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is entitled to any amount of damages by way of compensation on the tacts and in the circumstances of the present case. So far as power to grant compensation on a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution is concerned, the law on the point is well settled. In Consumer Education and Research Centre and others v. Union of India and others. AIR 1995 SC 922 , the Apex Court has held that in public law claim for compensation is a remedy available under Articles 32 and 226 of the Constitution of India for the enforcement and protection of fundamental and human rights. In another case in Shiv Sagar Tiwari v. Union of india and others, (1996) 6 SCC 599 , referring to the earlier two cases in Common Cause, A registered Society u. Union of India (Capt. Satish Sharmas case ). (1996) 6 SCC 593 and nilabhati Behera v. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 ; 1993 SCC (Cri) 527. the Apex Court directed Smt. Sheela Kaul to pay a sum of Rs. 60 lacs as exemplary damages to the Government exchequer. Another case on the point is D. K. Basu u. State of West Bengal. AIR 1977 SC 610, in which it was observed that it is now a well accepted proposition in most of the Jurisdiction, that monetary or pecuniary compensation is an appropriate and indeed an effective and sometimes perhaps the only suitable remedy for redressal of the established infringement of the fundamental rights to life of a citizen by the public servants and the State is vicariously liable for their acts. ( 12 ) THE point was more specifically decided by the Calcutta High Court in Rabindra Nath ghoshal v. University of Calcutta and others. ( 12 ) THE point was more specifically decided by the Calcutta High Court in Rabindra Nath ghoshal v. University of Calcutta and others. 1950-91 (4) AIEC 666, in which the Court has lamented on the working of the University as the various misdeeds of the University had the result of tarnishing the image of the Calcutta University which was once a pride of India. It was held that High Court can grant substantial reliefs to the petitioner even though not specifically claimed and the Court can undoubtedly take note of changed circumstances and suitably mould the relief to be granted to the party concerned in order to meet out justice in the case. As far as possible the anxiety and endeavour of the Court should be to remedy an injustice when it is brought to its notice. In the said case, University of Calcutta and the Vice-Chancellor were directed to pay a sum of Rs. 60,000 as monetary compensation and damages by way of consequential relief to the petitioner, whose result was not intimated even after a lapse of years together. Thus, there is enough authority on the point that compensation can be awarded to remedy an injustice to a petitioner under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. ( 13 ) FROM the facts stated above, it is evident that the petitioner was not only harassed but was subjected to great mental stress and strains, inasmuch as, at the time of examination he had to waste his time and energy to obtain the admit card from the University. When the college and the university authorities could not provide him any succour, he had to knock the door of the civil court and ultimately of this Court. The petitioner was treated in a most shabby manner and in spite of the fact that his cause was quite justified, the authorities were not prepared to redress his bona fide and genuine grievances. It was on account of sheer neglect of the authorities that the petitioner was kept in dark about his future as he was not sure whether he will be able to appear in the examination or not. A brilliant student as the petitioner is, had been made to suffer harshly. It was on account of sheer neglect of the authorities that the petitioner was kept in dark about his future as he was not sure whether he will be able to appear in the examination or not. A brilliant student as the petitioner is, had been made to suffer harshly. As a matter of fact, it was a criminal neglect on the part of the University authorities not to have issued the admit card to the petitioner to appear in the examination, particularly when he had completed all the requisite formalities. The admit card should have reached the petitioner in the normal course but It was withheld and when the petitioner approached to procure it. he was faced with volteface. The sufferings of the petitioner did not end here. After he was allowed to appear in the examination under the orders of the civil court, his result of M. Sc. (Previous) was not declared. He had again to rush to obtain the Courts order for the purpose. After the declaration of the result under the orders of the Court, the University authority, contumacious as they were. persisted in not permitting the petitioner to pursue his M. Sc. (Final) studies. A frustrated and flabbergasted student could do no belter but to approach this Court. It was again under the orders of this Court that the petitioner could pursue his M. Sc. (Final) studies and appear in the examination. In spite of various Courts orders, the University authorities did not take a lesson and have again insisted in not declaring the result of the petitioner of M. Sc (Final)examination. All these facts indicate that the University authorities were deliberately out to agonise, torture and oppress the petitioner with the result uncertainty loomed large and the future prospects of the petitioner appeared to him to be bleak. There can possibly be no hard and fast rule to measure the gravity and offensive behaviour and resultant grievances of the petitioner in terms of money. There is no scale or yardstick to measure the trauma suffered by the petitioner. A global amount of compensation may in the circumstances of the case be an endearing solace to the petitioner. Taking an overall view of the matter and various imponderables, I am of the opinion that the award of Rs. There is no scale or yardstick to measure the trauma suffered by the petitioner. A global amount of compensation may in the circumstances of the case be an endearing solace to the petitioner. Taking an overall view of the matter and various imponderables, I am of the opinion that the award of Rs. 25,000 to the petitioner as compensation would meet the ends of justice and would also be sufficient to denounce emphatically the irresponsible, callous and persistent apathetic behaviour of the University authorities. ( 14 ) IN the result, the petitioner succeeds and is allowed. The Registrar of Sahuji Maharaj (Kanpur) University--respondent No. 1 is hereby commanded to declare the result of the petitioner of M. Sc. (Final) 1997 examination immediately. A sum of Rs. 25,000 (rupees twenty five thousand) shall also be paid to the petitioner as compensation by the respondent-University within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is produced before the registrar of the respondent-University. .