Research › Search › Judgment

Jharkhand High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 635 (JHR)

SUNIL NAG v. BIHAR SCHOOL EXAMINATION BOARD

2001-09-07

M.Y.EQBAL

body2001
Judgment : M. Y. EQBAL, J. ( 1 ) IN this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of appropriate direction on the respondents-Bihar School Examination Board for making necessary correction in the result of the petitioner who has been declared fail in matriculation (Supplementary) Examination, 1998 showing him absent in the History subject. ( 2 ) PETITIONER as a regular student of Baghima High School, Gumla filled up examination form for supplementary matriculation examination to be conducted in the year 1998. The respondent-Board issued Admit Card wherein he was given Roll Code 01402 and Roll No. 0868 and the examination centre was Luthran High School, Gumla. Petitioner appeared in all the subjects and fairly did well in the examination. To the utter surprise of the petitioner when his result was published he was declared fail. On perusal of marks-sheet it appears that he was declared absent in History paper. Petitioner filed several representations before the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board, Patna requesting him to look into the matter but nothing was done. Petitioner then approached the District Forum under Consumer Protection Act. However, no relief was given by the Forum on the ground that the petitioner-complainant is not a consumer and the complaint is not maintainable. Petitioner then moved this Court by filing this writ application. It is stated that the Head-master of the Luthran High School, Gumla by letter dated 15-3-2000 addressed to the Secretary, Bihar School Examination Board confirmed that petitioner appeared in the History paper and he submitted his answer sheet bearing No. 875957 copy of the letter has been annexed as Annexure-5 to the writ application. Petitioner also annexed a copy of the list prepared by the Centre Superintendent in respect of candidates who appeared in History subject on the relevant date which petitioner has been shown at serial No. 28 bearing answer sheet No. 875957. A copy of the said list has been annexed as Annexure-6 to the writ application. ( 3 ) ON 20-6-2001 a counter-affidavit was filed by the respondent-Board stating inter alia that petitioner was declared fail because he was found absent in the History paper. The said counter-affidavit was not duly verified in accordance with law. This Court, therefore, after hearing the parties on 20-8-2001 passed the following order :-"a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Bihar School Examination Board, but in law it is not a counter-affidavit. The said counter-affidavit was not duly verified in accordance with law. This Court, therefore, after hearing the parties on 20-8-2001 passed the following order :-"a counter-affidavit has been filed by the Bihar School Examination Board, but in law it is not a counter-affidavit. This Counter-affidavit is, therefore, cannot be accepted. Let the matter be placed after one week, to enable the Board to file fresh affidavit. The respondents shall also produce the Answer Book bearing No. 875957. " ( 4 ) IN compliance of the aforesaid order respondent-Board filed fresh counter-affidavit sworn by Law Officer of the Board. In the said counter-affidavit which was filed on 27-8-2001 it was reiterated that the petitioner was declared fail because he was found absent in the History paper. It was further stated that the claim of the petitioner that he appeared in the History paper was enquired and on the basis of answer book number entered in the attendance sheet, the answer sheet was traced out but Roll number was not mentioned rather it was initially written as 1402 and by cutting the same 778 was mentioned. It is stated that petitioner had ulterior motive in making correction of Roll number in the answer sheet. ( 5 ) ON 27-8-2001, learned counsel for the petitioner produced before this Court a copy of the inquiry report of Addl. Secretary of the Board from which it appears that on inquiry it was found that petitioner appeared in History paper and his answer sheet was traced out. For better appreciation the order dated 27-8-2001 reads as under :-"pursuant to order dated 20-8-2001 parties have filed their affidavits and the original answer-sheet. Learned counsel for the petitioner produced before me the copy of the inquiry report of the Addl. Secretary Bihar School Examination Board in which he has found that petitioner appeared in the history paper and his answer-sheet was traced out and further that answer-sheet carry 24 marks. It was further recorded that on the basis of the marks obtained by the candidate a modified result may be published otherwise the Board may be put in difficulty in the event the answer-sheet called by the Court and some adverse remarks is passed against the Board. Mr. A. Sahay, learned counsel for the Board submits that he may be allowed to seek instruction in the matter. Prayer is allowed. Mr. A. Sahay, learned counsel for the Board submits that he may be allowed to seek instruction in the matter. Prayer is allowed. The Board shall produce the file relating to the original note-sheet for perusal of this Court. Put up this case on 5/09/2001. Office is directed to keep the answer-sheet in sealed cover. " ( 6 ) TODAY Mr. A. Sahay, learned counsel appearing for the Board produced before me original record in which matter relating to the petitioner was dealt with. It appears that the matter was enquired into in detail by the Officers of the Board and it was found that the answer-sheet bearing No. 875957 was the answer-sheet of the petitioner and he secured 24 marks. However, for confirmation the file was sent to the Chief Vigilance Officer for inquiry. The Chief Vigilance Officer of the Board also enquired the matter in detail and submitted his report on 29-5-99. The report reads as under :- (Vernacular matter omitted - Ed.) ( 7 ) FROM perusal of the aforesaid report it appears that the Chief Vigilance Officer also came to the conclusion that the petitioner did appear in the History paper and after proper verification and comparision it was found that answer sheet bearing No. 875957 was written by the petitioner. The Chief Vigilance Officer, therefore, recommended for publication of result of the petitioner. File was then placed before the Secretary of the Board. The Secretary of the Board also came to the same conclusion that since the petitioner appeared in the History paper and he secured 24 marks which is evident from the answer-sheet his modified result should be published. The Secretary of the Board finally placed the file before the Administrator on 30-6-99. Surprisingly enough the Administrator of the Board in one word "vlohdr" rejected the claim of the petitioner. For better appreciation, the report of the Secretary of the Board dated 30-6-99 and the endorsement made by the Administrator are quoted hereinbelow :- (Vernacular matter omitted - Ed.) ( 8 ) IT is rather surprising as to how by one stroke of pen the Administrator of the Board refused to publish the result of the petitioner despite consistent report of the Addl. Secretary, Chief Vigilance Officer and the Secretary of the Board, that too without assigning any reason and without application of mind. More surprising is the submission of Mr. Secretary, Chief Vigilance Officer and the Secretary of the Board, that too without assigning any reason and without application of mind. More surprising is the submission of Mr. A. Sahay, learned counsel for the Board that the Board would have published the modified result of the petitioner but it could not be done because of the order of rejection passed by the Administrator of the Board. ( 9 ) FURTHER most sad and sorry state of affairs is that although the Chief Vigilance Officer and the Secretary of the Board submitted their report on 29-5-99 and 30-6-99 and recorded a conclusive finding after verification of all the answer-sheets of the petitioner and other documents that the petitioner did appear in the History paper and secured 24 marks but in the counter-affidavit filed on 27-8-2001 false and frivolous statement was made by the Board that petitioner was declared fail because he was found absent in the History paper. It is also stated that answer book was written by different person hence a different Roll number was written on the answer-book. The counter-affidavit was sworn by one Law Officer and the source of knowledge of this statement have been based on information from the record, when the record is otherwise. It is, therefore, clear that the action of the Board in not publishing modified result of the petitioner is absolutely illegal, arbitrary, capricious and mala fide. ( 10 ) EXACTLY a similar question arose in a writ petition filed in Patna High Court (CWJC No. 8320/2001) (reported in 2001 (3) Pat LJR 591 ). In that case result of the writ petitioner was withheld as a wrong roll number was written in the answer-book for the Hindi paper. It was held by the Board that despite this error in the roll number the candidates answer-book of Hindi paper was duly traced out and it was found that she appeared in the examination of Hindi paper. A Bench of Patna High Court disposed of the writ application and directed the Board to immediately evaluate the answer-book of Hindi paper of the petitioner and declare her result within a month. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court (is) of the view that justice and equity demands publication of modified result of the petitioner by the Board forthwith. ( 11 ) HAVING regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court (is) of the view that justice and equity demands publication of modified result of the petitioner by the Board forthwith. ( 12 ) THIS is not the end of the matter. Petitioner appeared in the supplementary matriculation examination in the year 1998. The result was published and the marks-sheet was issued to the petitioner in 1998. Since 1998 petitioner has been approaching the Board for correction of the marks-sheet and publication of modified result. Despite the inquiry conducted and report submitted by the Chief Vigilance Officer and the Secretary of the Board in May/june, 1999, the result of the petitioner was not published. Even before the Consumer Forum the Principal of the School in his written statement has confirmed that the petitioner appeared in the History paper and his answer-books were sent to the department concerned but no steps was taken by the Board for the publication of result. On the contrary in the counter-affidavit filed on 27-8-2001 the Law Officer of the Board made false affidavit stating that the petitioner was declared fail because he was absent in the History paper. In this way, the authorities of the Board spoiled future career of the petitioner for long period of three years. ( 13 ) IN the case of "md. Obaidullah v. Bihar Intermediate Education Council, (CWJC No. 2756/2000), a Bench of this Court in similar facts and circumstances of the case awarded compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 and held as under :-"so far the first relief claimed by the petitioner is concerned, the respondents have already published the result of the petitioner in August, 2000 and declared him successful in the examination. But the question which arises is as to whether the petitioners entitled to compensation for the laches and negligence of the respondents. The first result was published in August, 1999 when the petitioner was declared fail as he was shown absent in one paper. The petitioner pursued the matter continuously and it was in August, 2000, he was declared pass. The respondent No. 2, Secretary of the Council very conveniently stated in the counter-affidavit that the result of the petitioner has been published and, therefore, the writ application has become infructuous. The respondent has not given any explanation for the mistake committed by it in declaring the petitioner absent in one subject. The respondent No. 2, Secretary of the Council very conveniently stated in the counter-affidavit that the result of the petitioner has been published and, therefore, the writ application has become infructuous. The respondent has not given any explanation for the mistake committed by it in declaring the petitioner absent in one subject. Surprisingly the respondents, in the counter-affidavit, have not whispered a word that the mistake was bona fide. It has not been disputed that due to gross negligence of the respondents the petitioner not only became late by two academic Sessions but he has been pushed two years back in the entire future career of his life. The petitioner, therefore, suffered serious loss and irreparable injury which cannot be compensated in terms of money. However, for the gross laches and negligence of the respondents, they are liable to be imposed compensatory cost and/or compensation to meet the ends of justice. I, therefore, direct the respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 50,000. 00 (fifty thousand) to the petitioner within one month from today. The application stands disposed of. " ( 14 ) THE Bihar Intermediate Education Council challenged the aforesaid order dated 6-7-2001 before the Division Bench in L. P. A. No. 499 of 2001. Their Lordships while dismissing the appeal by order dated 16-8-2001 held as under :-"the petitioner-respondents case has been that the appellants wrongly showed respondent to have failed, since, according to the appellants, the respondent did not appear in the Urdu Paper. The fact is that the respondent had appeared in the Urdu Paper and when he brought this to the notice of the appellants, the appellants realising their mistake declared the petitioner-respondent to have passed but exactly after one year. For the fault and negligence of the appellants, the respondent has lost one year. Compensation someone to the tune of Rs. 50,000. 00 for the loss of one year, cannot by any standard be deemed to be on the higher side or excessive. This appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. For the fault and negligence of the appellants, the respondent has lost one year. Compensation someone to the tune of Rs. 50,000. 00 for the loss of one year, cannot by any standard be deemed to be on the higher side or excessive. This appeal has no merit. It is, accordingly, dismissed. " ( 15 ) IN the instant case although there is mistake and laches on the part of the petitioner also in not correctly mentioning the roll number in the answer-sheet but at least in June, 1999 it was finally established on the basis of inquiry made by the Chief Vigilance Officer, and the Secretary of the Board that the petitioner appeared in the History paper and secured 24 marks which is evident from the answer-sheet. The Board, therefore, ought to have published the result of the petitioner at least in the year 1999 but it was not done so. Petitioner was, therefore, dragged into unnecessary litigation not only before the Consumer Forum but also to this Court. By reason of the in-action on the part of the Board, petitioner not only became late by three academic sessions but he has also been pushed three years back in the entire future career of his life. Not only that the Board has made false statement in the counter-affidavit contrary to the finding of the Chief Vigilance Officer, Addl. Secretary and the Secretary of the Board. This resulted in serious loss and irreparable injury besides suffering mental pain and agony. The respondent-Board are, therefore, liable to make good to some extent by paying compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 (fifty-thousand ). ( 16 ) IN the result, this writ application is allowed. Respondents are directed to publish the modified result of the petitioner within ten days from today and also to pay compensation of Rs. 50,000. 00 within one month from today. Application allowed. --- *** --- .