JUDGMENT C.K. THAKKER, CHIEF JUSTICE (ORAL):Admitted, Mr. S.S. Mittal, Advocate appears and waives service of notice on behalf of the respondent. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the matter is taken up for final hearing today. 2. This petition is filed by the petitioner for an appropriate writ, direction or order ordering the Himachal Pradesh University, respondent herein, to pay damages to the extent of Rupees five lacs along with 18% interest till realisation of the amount. Further reliefs are also claimed. 3. The case of the petitioner was that she appeared in B.A.Part-III Examination conducted by the respondent-University under Roll No.7547 in the year 1997. On may 30.1997, the result was declared and as stated in the petition, she obtained the following marks: 1. English 32 marks out of 100 marks 2. Economics 35 marks out of 100 marks 3. Hindi 14 marks out of 100 marks 4. As the petitioner was confident that she would have obtained more marks, she was not satisfied with the marks given to her. She, therefore, made an application for re-evaluation within the stipulated period. The re-evaluation was not made immediately and her result was declared after very long period. After re-evaluation, she obtained the following marks, as per AnnexureP-1: 1. English 35 marks out of 100 marks 2. Economics 35 marks out of 100 marks 3. Hindi 43 marks out of 100 marks 5. The grievance of the petitioner is that though the earlier result i was declared in May, 1997, after re-evaluation the result was declared as late as on March 6, 1998 i.e. after about 9 months as per Marks Sheet f Annexure p-1 and as per the learned counsel for the petitioner, the result Card was received by the petitioner on March 15,1998. 6. It is stated in the petition that because of undue and unreasonable delay in declaring the result by the University after re-evaluation, the petitioner could not prosecute her further studies. It was also alleged that it had adversely affected her future career and the blame lies only with the University. It was also averred that due to long delay on the part of the respondent-University in sending the result, her marriage prospects had received a setback. A prayer is therefore, made to direct the respondent-University to pay damage to the extent of Rupees five lacs. 7. Mr. It was also averred that due to long delay on the part of the respondent-University in sending the result, her marriage prospects had received a setback. A prayer is therefore, made to direct the respondent-University to pay damage to the extent of Rupees five lacs. 7. Mr. Mittal, on the other hand, submitted that so far as the change of marks is concerned, there is no dispute. After re-evaluation, the petitioner had obtained 113 marks. He also stated that the marks sheet was prepared on March 6,1998 and it was sent to the petitioner thereafter. He, however, submitted that for getting appropriate relief for damages and/or compensation, the petitioner ought to approach Civil Court and the Civil Court, after considering the facts and circumstances of the case, will decide the matter. 8. In our opinion, the grievance of the learned counsel for the petitioner that there was undue delay on the part of the respondent-University is well-founded and cannot be denied. Though an application for re-evaluation was made after the result was declared the respondent-University took a very long time and there was unreasonable delay in preparing the mark sheet after re-evaluation. Ordinarily, in these circumstances, the aggrieved party may approach a Civil court or other forum for damages/compensation as available and appropriate order would be passed in such proceedings. 9. In view of the undisputed facts, however, and also looking to Annexure P1, which is dated March 6, 1998, in our opinion, it would be appropriate, if we direct the respondent-University to pay compensation to the petitioner to the extant of Rs.25,000/-. We may, however, hasten to add that so far relief of damages/compensation before an appropriate forum will not be affected by this order and as and when such proceedings would be taken before an appropriate forum, they will be decided on their own merits, albeit keeping in mind that a sum of Rs.25,000/- has been awarded by this court. 10. Over and above the sum of Rs.25,000/- the petitioner is entitled to costs of this petition, which is quantified as Rs.5000/-. The petition is allowed to the above extent.