Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2001 DIGILAW 760 (MP)

AMIT KUMAR DUBEY v. BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION

2001-10-19

DIPAK MISRA

body2001
ORDER Dipak Misra, J.—Invoking the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India the Petitioner has prayed for a writ of mandamus commanding the Respondents to declare the result of the Petitioner of Class X and to issue the mark-sheet and further to grant such other reliefs as may be deemed fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the case. 2. Facts as have been exposited are that the Petitioner, a young lad of 17 years, was a regular student of class X prosecuting his studies in Government Boys Higher Secondary School, Mauganj, Rewa. He appeared in the annual examination in the year 2000. Board of Secondary Education, the Respondent No. 1, herein declared the result and issued the mark sheet to the Petitioner vide Annexure P-1. He was shown supplementary in the mark sheet. The Petitioner was issued admission card for supplementary examination. He was allotted a Roll No. 13234741 instead of Roll No. 13233741. It is apposite to mention here that in the Annexure P-1 the Roll No. is mentioned as 1323371. The Petitioner appeared in the supplementary examination in the month of August, 2000 from the centre, namely, Boys Higher Secondary School, Mauganj but the result of the Petitioner was not declared. The Petitioner submitted a representation to the Respondents on 12-2-2001 as per Annexure P-2. Thereafter the Principal intimated the Petitioner that the authority of the Board has been requested to publish the result of the Petitioner. As averred, the Petitioner submitted a series of representations to the Board but no steps were taken by the Board. Guardian of the Petitioner made a personal visit to the Board Office, Bhopal but his effort and endeavour became an exercise in futility. 3. According to the writ Petitioner there is no justification on the part of the Board in not publishing the result of the Petitioner and not supplying him mark sheet in respect of the supplementary examination of class X. Due to inaction of the Board, the Petitioner has suffered immense inasmuch as he could not take admission in various courses. With these averments the prayers have been made as have been indicated hereinabove. 4. With these averments the prayers have been made as have been indicated hereinabove. 4. A return has been filed by the answering Respondents contending, inter alia, that there was an error in allotment of Roll No. and after due scrutiny the result has been declared in respect of Roll No. 13233741 declaring that he had passed in second division. Notification dated 9-10-2001 in that regard has been brought on record as Annexure R-1. It has also been set forth that the mark sheet of the Petitioner has been sent to him. 5. Ordinarily I would have disposed of the writ petition indicating that the grievance of the Petitioner has been mitigated and, therefore, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous but Mr. J.L. Mishra, Learned Counsel for the Petitioner has impressed upon this Court that suitable compensation be granted to the Petitioner as he has suffered enormous anguish and hardship. 6. Mr. P.D. Gupta, Learned Counsel appearing for the Board sounded a contra note highlighting that the Board has to conduct examination in respect of more than ten lacs students per year and under this circumstance, occurrence of an error cannot be totally ruled out but every error cannot be regarded as negligence. 7. To appreciate the rival submissions raised at the Bar I have bestowed my anxious consideration to the obtaining factual matrix and taken stock of the scenario which has been very lucidly portrayed by Mr. Gupta. I am conscious that the Board has to conduct the examination in respect of large number of students. More the number, in my humble view, more the responsibility. True it is, when any action has to be taken by a statutory body which engulfs and encompasses a series of action which involve lengthy process, some margin of error has to be ignored. But a potential but, in the case at hand whether such a margin either in the denotative sense or conceptual spectrum gets attracted. That is precisely the centrum question. I may further add that a balance has to be struck and it has to be seen whether the balance tilts in favour of the Board or in favour of the Petitioner who has been compelled to visit this Court for mitigation of his grievance. As Mr. Mishra would like to put it, he still grieves. Indubitably the Petitioner is young. As Mr. Mishra would like to put it, he still grieves. Indubitably the Petitioner is young. He has a lot of inspiration embedded in his heart to go ahead in life. With a lot of hope he had appeared in the examination. It was the initial stage in his carrier. When the result was not published and marksheet was not given but was done at a later stage the mental agony of the Petitioner can be well imagined. It was a blow faced by him at an early age and in the beginning of his educational carrier. One may say failure is the pillar of success but one cannot also forget the caution that failure at an early stage of like without one's fault makes one feel bitter pessimistic and cruel. When the failure is caused due to callousness of someone it would be inappropriate to rely on the concept that failure ultimately ushers in positive fruits of courage to go forward. I have stated so because it is not the Petitioner who was at fault but it is the Board. Mr. Gupta has prayed for exoneration on the foundation that this Court should keep in view the magnitude of work that is performed by the Board. But, an exceptional one, this Court cannot be insensible to the amount of distress and heartache faced by the Petitioner. It cannot be forgotten that when the Board conducts examination it has to have the adherence and the responsibility from the beginning to end. Sacrosanctity of the examination has to be maintained in all manner and abdication of the responsibility and calling on that score is not to be countenanced. It is apposite to state here the Petitioner had submitted a representation in quite promptitude when his result was not published but the authority of the Board did not pay any attention to it. Their lackadaisical and languorous attitude is incomprehensible. One can appreciate an error and further appreciate when it is rectified without delay but when delay occurs unconcern ushers in and the whole action gets metamorphosed into a different one, indicating that precepts have been left in the lurch. When the cannons are not followed the action invites the wrath and indictment of majesty of law and law must prevail and would not unyoke however high the person or institution may be. When the cannons are not followed the action invites the wrath and indictment of majesty of law and law must prevail and would not unyoke however high the person or institution may be. Thus, in my considered opinion the Board has fallen into error, a grave one, in not publishing the result of the Petitioner and not forwarding the marksheet to him with promptness as was expected of it. The negligence on the part of the Board is not neglectable. Under these circumstances I think the Board should compensate the Petitioner and accordingly it is directed that the Board shall pay a sum of Rs. 5,000/- towards compensation to the Petitioner by way of a bank draft within a period of six weeks from the date of the receipt of the order passed today. 8. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.