ORDER M.Y. Eqbal, J. 1. Heard the counsel for the parties. 2. In this writ application the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a direction upon the respondent-Jharkhand School Examination Board to publish the modified or corrected result of the petitioner of Secondary School Examination, 2001 which was held in March, 2001 and further for payment of compensation for the irreparable loss and mental agony due to illegal action of the respondents. 3. The petitioner is a student of Netarhat Residential School. In 2001 he appeared in the annual matriculation examination held in March, 2001 conducted by the respondent-Board. It appears that the petitioner was having excellent records in his school and also did well in the matriculation examination but he was declared fail and in the cross-list supplied to the school it was found that the petitioner secured 5 marks in Chemistry paper. It is stated by the petitioner that he obtained 75% marks in all the papers and also in aggregate including Chemistry theory paper and he was expecting 100% marks in Chemistry paper also. The petitioner, therefore, immediately filed an application along with requisite fee for scrutiny of his Chemistry paper which was forwarded by Netarhat Residential School on 20.6.2001. When the result of the scrutiny was not communicated to the petitioner, he has approached this Court by filing the instant writ application. 4. In the Counter-Affidavit fried by the Board it is admitted that the petitioner obtained 75% marks in other subjects but in Chemistry paper he was given 5 marks in theory on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner in the original copy. It is stated that although in the answer-sheet the petitioner obtained 35 marks in Chemistry theory paper but he was given 5 marks in the said subject as per the standard marks foil. It is further stated that from the examination attendance sheet it appears that there is overwriting in Chemistry answer book number written in the attendance sheet which created doubt that the answer book has been altered and as such the present answer book available with the Board cannot be taken into consideration for retotallng of the marks obtained by the petitioner in the changed answer book. 5. This matter was heard for the first time on 14.1,2002 and the respondent- Board was directed to produce the answer book of the Chemistry theory paper of the petitioner. 5. This matter was heard for the first time on 14.1,2002 and the respondent- Board was directed to produce the answer book of the Chemistry theory paper of the petitioner. Pursuant to that order the respondents produced the answer book of the petitioner and other candidates also. From perusal of the answer sheet of the Chemistry paper of the petitioner it appears that he secured 35 marks in the said subject. 6. Since a very serious stand was taken by the Board that the original answer book of the Chemistry paper in which the petitioner has secured only 5 marks was replaced by another answer sheet showing 35 marks, the Board was directed to produce the relevant file in which the application of the petitioner for re- totaling of the marks was processed as the Board in its Counter-Affidavit stated that by letter dated 26.11.2001 the result of scrutiny was communicated by the Board to the petitioner. It is surprising that the Board failed to produce the original answer sheet in which the petitioner secured only 5 marks and a plea was taken that the answer sheet was disposed of and sold in the market. 7. As noticed above, the Board in para 13 of the Counter- Affidavit has categorically stated that the result of re-totaling has been duly communicated to the Principal of the concerned school on 26.11.2001, a copy of communication dated 26.11.2001 has been annexed as Annexure-D to the Counter-Affidavit. It is, therefore, clear that in November, 2001 the alleged original answer sheet was available to the Board and re-totaling was done and it was found that the petitioner obtained only 5 marks. But from perusal of the records produced by the Board it appears that on receipt of the application for scrutiny a note was prepared stating that on scrutiny of the answer sheet it was found that the petitioner had obtained 35 marks in Chemistry paper but in the tabulation register only 5 marks was entered. It was. therefore, suggested that after giving 35 marks to the petitioner his result could be published. Similar notes were forwarded by the Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary that after giving 35 marks petitioners result could be published. It was. therefore, suggested that after giving 35 marks to the petitioner his result could be published. Similar notes were forwarded by the Joint Secretary and Deputy Secretary that after giving 35 marks petitioners result could be published. The Secretary of the Board also recommended that on the basis of the marks obtained by the petitioner his result should be published and he should be declared pass in first division. However, the Administrator finally rejected the application on 19.11.2001 holding that the answer sheet of the Chemistry paper of the petitioner has been changed because in the attendance sheet there is correction of the roll number. The rejection of the recommendation of the authority for publication of result on the basis of marks obtained by the petitioner in the Chemistry paper, is without any basis. Even assuming that the Administrator came to the conclusion that the answer sheet was changed then how the Board by letter dated 26.11.2001 informed the petitioner that his answer sheet was examined and on re-totaling it was found that he secured only 5 marks. 8. I may take judicial notice of the fact that after the creation of State of Jharkhand, the Jharkhand School Examination Board was created and for the first time examination was conducted in 2001. Several mistakes illegalities and irregularities have been committed by the Examination Board in the matter of conducting examination, evaluation of answer sheets and publication of result as a result of which several writ applications were filed by various candidates which either been disposed of or are pending. In some of the cases the Board admitted their mistakes and the candidates declared pass in the examination. This is another instance where on receipt of application, scrutiny of answer- sheet of Chemistry paper of the petitioner was done and it was found that the candidate actually secured 35 marks but only 5 marks was entered in the tabulation sheet. At no point of time from the level of examiner to the level of Secretary any doubt was created regarding change of answer-sheets and all the authorities of the Board recommended for correction of the result on the basis of scrutiny and for declaring the petitioner successful with 1st Division but the Administrator rejected the application merely by stating that the answer- sheet has been changed. The decision of the Administrator appears to be whimsical and without any basis. 9. The decision of the Administrator appears to be whimsical and without any basis. 9. As noticed above, the result of the examination was published in June, 2001. Petitioner immediately applied for scrutiny of his Chemistry paper which was forwarded by Netarhat Residential School on 20.6.2001. After about five months the result of the scrutiny was communicated by the Board vide letter dated 26.11.2001. The petitioner who is a student of a prestigious school of the State of Jharkhand, namely, Netarhat Residential School was not satisfied with the scrutiny for the reason that he secured 75% marks in all the other subjects. Having not satisfied with the scrutiny, petitioner approached this Court by filing instant writ application. This Court after perusal of the record of scrutiny found that the affidavit filed by the Board is different from the facts appeared in the record. Because of inaction and whimsical decision of the authority of the Board the petitioner has unnecessarily suffered irreparable loss and injury. However, since this is the first examination conducted by newly constituted Jharkhand State Examination Board, I do not want to pass any harsh order against the authorities of the Board. It is expected that in the coming examinations, the Board shall act sincerely and with all fairness in conducting the examination and publication of result, 10. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this writ application is allowed and the decision of the Administrator rejecting recommendation of the authorities of the Board to declare the petitioner successful in the examination is quashed. Respondent-Board is directed to publish the result of the petitioner after giving 35 marks in Chemistry paper, within two weeks from today. 11. Although, I am not allowing compensation for the reason stated hereinbefore, but certainly the petitioner must be paid the cost of litigation, which is quantified at Rs. 1000/-