Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2000 DIGILAW 634 (MP)

Ritubala Soni v. State of M. P.

2000-07-04

C.K.PRASAD

body2000
I begin this order with this prefatory note. Framers of the Constitution. while conferring jurisdiction to this Court to issue prerogative writs and power of superintendence, in their wildest dream would not have thought that a citizen of this country has to invoke the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India for getting the mark sheet corrected. Bulk of the time of the Courts are wasted on such avoidable litigations and unless this is curtailed the complain of delayed justice and 'pendency' cannot be overcome; notwithstanding herculean efforts by the Judges and increase of number of Judges. Circumstances have compelled this child, who has just entered in her teen; to approach this Court inter alia praying that the respondents be directed to correct her mark sheet. Petitioner appeared in the Primary School Certificate Examination held by respondent No.2 in the year 1998. She was provided with the mark-sheet which shows that she has passed the examination in third division having secured 292 marks. Petitioner being sanguine about her performance in the examination, filed application before respondents for correction of her mark-sheet on 5.5.1998. Nothing was done. Petitioner thereafter gave legal notice to the respondents but that also did not bring any succour to her. Petitioner made further attempt and gave legal notices dated 23.6.1998 and 17.7.1998. All these representations and legal notices did not move the respondents and ultimately left with no option. she has filed this writ petition. By order dated 7.2.2000, this Court directed for issuance of a show cause notice to the respondents. Thereafter the matter was taken up on 22.3.2000 and at the request of counsel for the respondents, three weeks' time was granted to file the reply. Respondents did not carry out their commitment. Thereafter, the matter was taken up on 5.5.2000 and this Court directed the respondents to file the return by 26th June, 2000 and it further observed that in case no return is filed respondent No.3 shall be present before this Court on 26th June, 2000. When the matter was taken up on 26.6.2000, at the request of counsel for the respondents, the case has been adjourned for today. Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr. Ajay Raizada, G.A. states that the mark-sheet of the petitioner has been corrected and instead of 41% marks shown earlier, she has secured 64.5% marks. When the matter was taken up on 26.6.2000, at the request of counsel for the respondents, the case has been adjourned for today. Today, when the matter is taken up, Mr. Ajay Raizada, G.A. states that the mark-sheet of the petitioner has been corrected and instead of 41% marks shown earlier, she has secured 64.5% marks. He further states that the petitioner was earlier shown to have passed the examination in IIIrd Division and on verification it has been found that she has passed the examination in 1st Division. He further states that necessary corrections have been made and the certificate has been made available to her. I wonder as to why the petitioner has been forced to file this writ petition. Had the respondents given due attention to the representations made by her, a young girl who has just entered into her teen could not have come to this Court and had to undergo the trauma for all these years. When the mark sheet could be corrected after filing of the writ petition why it cannot be corrected without that. The editorial in India Today (July 10.2000) flashes in my mind. The bureaucracy self perpetuating Hobbesian leviathan - is not just the symptom of the India's ills; it is the disease. Its very structure sabotages innovations, condones lassitude and encourages the attitude that a government job is a sinecure from the day you get it." As the mark-sheet has already been corrected. the direction sought for by the petitioner is of no consequence. However, in view of the callous attitude of the respondents and in order to curtail this tendency, and to avoid un-called for litigation. I am inclined to award an exemplary cost. Respondents shall pay to the petitioner a sum of Rs. 10.000/- as a cost of this litigation. Further. Principal Secretary in the department of Education of the Government of Madhya Pradesh is hereby directed to hold an enquiry and ascertain who is responsible for not correcting the mark sheet within a reasonable period. The State Govt. shall be well advised to realise the amount of cost which I have awarded to the petitioner from the person held responsible and may take further disciplinary action against him. Principal Secretary of the department shall ensure compliance of this order and inform to the Registry of this Court the action taken by it within 3 months.