Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2006 DIGILAW 526 (MP)

Raj Lal Patel v. State of M. P.

2006-04-13

DIPAK MISRA

body2006
Judgment ( 1. ) THE petitioner was a regular student of Class XIIth in Government Higher Secondary School, Bithouli, District Sidhi. In the academic year 2001-02, he deposited fees and the necessary form for appearing in the Higher Secondary School Certificate Examination, 2002 with higher Mathematics as a subject. As setforth, his additional subject was Biology. The Board allotted the Roll Number 23516432 and Centre No. 35023, Government Higher Secondary School, Sonwarsha to the petitioner. But in the admission card issued in favour of the petitioners the subject of higher Mathematics was not mentioned. Due to said mistake of the Board the petitioner could not appear in the examination and lost one year. He submitted a representation to the Competent Authority of the Board through Principal of the Government Higher Secondary School, Sidhi. It is urged in the petition that at the relevant time the petitioner approached the Principal of the School who recommended his case to the Centre Superintendent who did not pay any heed to the same. It is contended that due to the mistake of the Board the petitioner could not appear in the subject of Higher Mathematics, but appeared in other subjects and secured 70% marks. The mark-sheet has been brought on record as Annexure P-2. It is putforth that the petitioner approached many authorities but no one paid any heed to his miseries. The Board issued a letter to the petitioner and directed him to send the original mark-sheet. The petitioner in compliance of the said letter sent the original mark-sheet and requested it to allow him to sit in the Supplementary Examination, 2002 in the subject of Higher Mathematics and to supply him the correct mark-sheet. Assertions have been made with regard to the brilliance of the petitioner and how he has suffered due to the mistake of the Board. On 22-4-2002, the Board issued a letter and permitted the petitioner to appear in the Supplementary Examination after forwarding the form, but by the time the petitioner could receive said communication, only four days were left for the examination. The petitioner immediately approached the Principal of the School but the Principal did not forward the form for examination due to shortage of time as a result of which the petitioner again missed the examination. The petitioner immediately approached the Principal of the School but the Principal did not forward the form for examination due to shortage of time as a result of which the petitioner again missed the examination. It is pleaded that due to the irresponsible act of the officer/staff of the Board the petitioner has suffered immensely as he could not appear in the PET/pmt Examination. In this backdrop prayer has been made to issue a direction to the respondents to permit the petitioner to appear in the subject of Higher Mathematics in the examination of 2003 and to supply the correct mark-sheet and further to grant compensation for harassment caused to him. ( 2. ) A counter affidavit has been filed by the respondent No. 2, the Board of Secondary Education, asseverating that after the receipt of the representation from the petitioner he was asked to send the original mark-sheet for taking appropriate action. The petitioner sent his mark-sheet vide application dated 8-8-2002. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, the answering respondent took a decision to permit the petitioner to appear in the Supplementary Examination in the subject of Higher Mathematics. By letter dated 22-7-2002 the said permission was granted. A copy of the letter was also sent to the Principal, Government Higher Secondary School, Sidhi. The petitioner was asked to submit his application form for Supplementary Examination within three days. The petitioner submitted a representation that he could not appear in the Supplementary Examination as the Principal of the School had not forwarded his form. On the basis of the said representation the Board granted the petitioner to continue his studies as a regular student in the Government Higher Secondary School, Bithouli. A copy of the said permission letter dated 21-9-2002 has been brought on record as Annexure R-2/5. Consequent to the said permission the petitioner continued as a regular student and again filled up the form for the next examination. He appeared in all subjects and became successful. Copy of the result showing petitioners Roll Number for March, 2003 final examination has been brought on record as Annexure R-2/7. It is the stand of the Board that the permission for appearing in the Supplementary Examination was granted to the petitioner but due to the act of the concerned Principal he could not appear and, therefore, the Board cannot be treated to be at fault. It is the stand of the Board that the permission for appearing in the Supplementary Examination was granted to the petitioner but due to the act of the concerned Principal he could not appear and, therefore, the Board cannot be treated to be at fault. A stand has also been taken that as the petitioner has appeared in Examination, 2003 and his results have been declared, the writ petition has been rendered infructuous. ( 3. ) A return has been filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 contending, inter alia, that the petitioners examination form was duly forwarded by the Principal of the Government Higher Secondary School, Bithouli to the Board in the subjects of Higher Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and additional subject of Biology. A copy of the nominal roll has been brought on record as Annexure R-1. But in the admission card, which was sent by the Board the subject of Higher Mathematics was not mentioned. As per the Schedule of Examination, the paper of Higher Mathematics was to be held on 1-3-2002. The admission card of the petitioner was received in the office of the Principal of the concerned school on 4-2-2002. As there was mistake in the admission card contrary to the nominal roll sent by the Principal to the respondent-Board, the Principal of the school had sent a correction proposal to the Divisional Officer of the Board at Rewa on 5-2-2002. A copy of the said correction proposal has been brought on record as Annexure R-2. The Divisional Officer of the Board at Rewa accepted correction proposal on 4-3-2002 after the examination was over and, therefore, the petitioner could not appear. The Board had granted permission to the petitioner to appear in the Supplementary Examination in the subject of Higher Mathematics by letter dated 22-7-2002 and the same has been forwarded to the Principal of the School but it was received belatedly. It is also putforth that in the letter dated 22-7-2002 the name of the petitioner, his fathers name and his address was not correctly mentioned. Due to this reason, the letter could not reach on time. The petitioner had submitted a representation to be admitted to the Class XIIth as regular student and his request was recommended by the Principal and eventually he was granted such admission and he appeared in the Examination, 2003 and declared passed. Due to this reason, the letter could not reach on time. The petitioner had submitted a representation to be admitted to the Class XIIth as regular student and his request was recommended by the Principal and eventually he was granted such admission and he appeared in the Examination, 2003 and declared passed. It is the stand in the return that there is no fault on the part of the said respondents. The whole blame has been put on the Board on the ground that the Board had not initially mentioned the subject of Higher Mathematics in the admit card and the corrected proposal was sent belatedly by the Board. ( 4. ) I have heard Mr. R. S. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel for the petitioner, Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned Counsel for the respondent-Board of Secondary Education, and Mr. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate for the State. ( 5. ) IT is submitted by Mr. Chaturvedi, learned Counsel, that for no fault of the petitioner he has to suffer for a period of one year and the only grace that has been shown is that he has been permitted to prosecute his studies in the regular manner in the next academic year but that would not wash away the negligence committed by the Board. It is urged by him that the Board has a duty to act in a responsible manner as it deals with young students and a singular mistake of theirs creates an incurable hazard for the student and the factual matrix of the case being tell-tale this Court should award compensation in favour of the petitioner as this is the only relief alive in praesenti. ( 6. ) MR. Naman Nagrath, learned Counsel appearing for the respondent-Board has submitted that the Board conducts examination of lacs of students and if an error has crept in, as putforth by the petitioner, the same cannot be treated to be such a fallacious act warranting grant of compensation. The learned Counsel has highlighted that the Board had taken appropriate steps at the appropriate time and hence, initial mistake that had occurred, stood rectified and resultantly, the prayer of the petitioner is absolutely unsustainable. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner having accepted to prosecute his studies as a regular student later on and having appeared in the examination, has waived his right for any other claim. ( 7. ) MR. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner having accepted to prosecute his studies as a regular student later on and having appeared in the examination, has waived his right for any other claim. ( 7. ) MR. Harish Agnihotri, learned Government Advocate, contended that respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5, the Competent Authorities of the State and the Principal of the Government Higher Secondary School had not committed any irregularity and no recklessness or carelessness can be attributed to them since the Principal of the school had entered into correspondence with the Divisional Officer of the Board in quite promptitude. ( 8. ) THE fulcrum of the controversy basically pertains to grant of compensation. The nominal roll that was forwarded by the Principal to the Board of Secondary Education showed the subjects of Higher Mathematics, Physics, Chemistry and Biology as an additional subject. It is manifest that the Board vide letter dated 19-7-2002 had entered into the communication with the Competent Authority of the Board at Rewa that the petitioner was a regular student of the school and he was student of Mathematics group but due to the fault of the Board the subject of Higher Mathematics was not mentioned as the main subject as a result of which the Centre Superintendent did not allow him to sit in the examination. The Principal as it seems had requested the Board to permit the petitioner to appear in the Supplementary Examination. The Board vide Annexure R-2/3 dated 22-7-2002 had permitted the petitioner to appear in the Supplementary Examination. As has been setforth in the return filed by the respondent Nos. 1, 3 and 5 that the letter of permission could not reach the school because of the erroneous mention of the name of the petitioner as Ramlal in place of Rajlal and it also wrongly mentioned the name of the father as Datt Prasad in place of Dadan Prasad and as far as name of place is concerned in place of Bithouli it has been mentioned as Bithoul. Due to incorrect address, the letter did not reach the petitioner in time. The said respondents have also brought on record the copy of the letter effecting correction granted by the Divisional Officer as Annexure R-3. ( 9. ) FROM the aforesaid adumbration of facts, four things are clear as crystal viz. Due to incorrect address, the letter did not reach the petitioner in time. The said respondents have also brought on record the copy of the letter effecting correction granted by the Divisional Officer as Annexure R-3. ( 9. ) FROM the aforesaid adumbration of facts, four things are clear as crystal viz. , (i) that the petitioner was a regular student in the Mathematics group of subject in Government Higher Secondary School, Bithouli; (ii) that while issuing the admission card the Board had not mentioned the subject of Higher Mathematics despite the same having been mentioned in the nominal roll sent by the school concerned; (iii) that the Competent Authority of the Board upon receipt of the correction proposal from the Principal of the School had rectified the same; and (iv) that the permission to sit in the Supplementary Examination though granted, the said letter of permission was sent in a different address. It is interesting to note here that though categorical and unequivocal assertions have been made with regard to the non-mention of the subject of Higher Mathematics, the proposal submitted by the Principal to the Board after narrating the facts and the action taken by the Board and the request made to permit the petitioner appear in the Supplementary Examination in the subject of Higher Mathematics and how he was permitted to continue his studies as a regular student, no specific stand has been taken with regard to the non-mention of the subject of Higher Mathematics in the admit card. From the aforesaid, it is luminescent that the subject of Higher Mathematics was not mentioned in the admit card. There is no reason to disbelieve that the functionaries of the State and the Principal that the letter issued by the Competent Authority of the Board permitting the petitioner to sit in the Supplementary Examination did not reach the Principal in time. On a scrutiny of the said letter, it is perceivable that wrong name and wrong address was mentioned. Submission of Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned Counsel is that the Board has taken rectificatory measures and allowed the petitioner to continue his studies as a regular student and, therefore, the fault, if any, has been exonerated and the situation should be treated to have been redeemed. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner having accepted the situation, has waived his right for claiming compensation. It is also submitted by him that the petitioner having accepted the situation, has waived his right for claiming compensation. In addition, it is propounded by him that when the Board has been given the responsibility of conducting the examination for lacs of students, a singular mistake should not be highlighted. As far as the question of waiver is concerned, I am inclined to think that the petitioner had approached this Court at the earliest point of time and the Board as well as the other respondents did not file the counter affidavit in quite promptitude. With the efflux of time the petitioner undertook to prosecute his studies as a regular student. He could not have taken a chance. Therefore, the relief regarding appearing in singular subject of Higher Mathematics has vapourized and become extinct. But the issue relating to relief of grant of compensation cannot be allowed to be vapourized because of his acceptance to prosecute studies in the subsequent year as a regular student. It cannot be regarded as an act of waiver. Hence, I repel the submission of Mr. Naman Nagrath on this score. ( 10. ) THE next plank of submission which requires to be dealt with is that whether because of large of scale activities of the Board relating to conducting of examination, such an act of negligence should be overlooked and condoned. Submission of Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned Counsel is that when such enormous work is done, mistakes are bound to occur. True it is, there cannot be a system which would have the perfection in entirety. True, it cannot have the pinkness of perfection. It cannot be in an apple pie order. But it cannot be forgotten- higher the responsibility, more the accountability. The Board is conducting examination for young students. For a student, his studies, the career prospects and above all the time factor matters. It is trite to say that no one has the power or prowess to arrest time. The petitioner could not undertake the examination of Mathematics because of the fault of the Board as the Board sent the admit card not in accordance with the subjects mentioned in the nominal roll sent by the Principal of the concerned school. It is trite to say that no one has the power or prowess to arrest time. The petitioner could not undertake the examination of Mathematics because of the fault of the Board as the Board sent the admit card not in accordance with the subjects mentioned in the nominal roll sent by the Principal of the concerned school. The same being brought to the notice of the Board by the Principal, there was no immediate awakening and the correction was sent for permitting the petitioner to appear in a Supplementary Examination in the erroneous address. What has been urged by Mr. Naman Nagrath is that the Board has permitted the petitioner to appear as a regular student in Class XIIth Examination in the next academic year. It cannot be treated to be an absolute mitigating action. This might have saved the career of the petitioner. Indubitably, it has not put the clock back, it could not have. The time passed and lost is irredeemable. Submission of Mr. Naman Nagrath, learned Counsel is that there has been redemption does not impress this Court. Be it stated with certitude and without any hesitation that the petitioner has lost his one year for the fault of the Board. The authorities who conduct examinations have to be more careful and responsible and there has to be real check in many matters within the time frame so that the mistake of this nature cannot occur. All mistakes cannot be put into one compartment. Mistakes may occur but the degree, gravity and the nature of the mistake are to be seen. If it is absolutely fundamental mistake by which a students time and career is affected and he is deprived of appearing in any other entrance examination it cannot be regarded as a minor mistake. Mistakes which are rectifiable and are rectified in the proper time frame, no fault can be found with the Board. But in the case at hand the mistake committed by the Board made the student sit in the time machine for a period of one year. This is not exonerable. A Public Authority is required to act with care, promptness and with definite positive prospective. It is expected to act within legal, lawful and acceptable parameters. A responsible officer of the Board cannot act like a truant and behave as if he is in a state of fancy. This is not exonerable. A Public Authority is required to act with care, promptness and with definite positive prospective. It is expected to act within legal, lawful and acceptable parameters. A responsible officer of the Board cannot act like a truant and behave as if he is in a state of fancy. Neither fancy nor humour have any role in a serious matter like this where the career growth of a student is the subject-matter. A student is the future hope of the nation. It has been said hope has hope and in my considered opinion that hope was marred in the case of the petitioner. When the nominal roll was sent by a student who had a legitimate expectation that his admit card would come incorporating the subjects which he had studied. Such legitimate expectation is a lawful one. By the negligence and careless act of the respondent-Board the petitioner was deprived and denied of the opportunity to appear in the said subject as a consequence of which he was denuded of his legitimate expectation to appear in the examination and his time of one year was destroyed and paralyzed. The money cannot put the petitioner back in the situation in which he could have been in the academic session 2001-02. But in the adjudicatory system though the principle of relegation in time cannot be always applied because of the efflux of time but irrefragably the grant of compensation can be the mode to usher in a situation of mitigation. In the case of Dr. Sandeep Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh W. P. No. 3940/2005, this Court in Paragraph 23 taking into consideration the loss of opportunity granted compensation. Paragraph 23 of the said decision reads as under: 23. Another facet which is really worth considering is that the candidates who could have been called for counselling because they were in the waiting list after 269, have not been called. They are the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4040, 4313/2005 and 3981/2005. They could have been selected in respect of certain steams. They have lost the opportunity. As they have suffered they are to be granted compensation. I am inclined to fix compensation at the rate of Rs. They are the petitioners in W. P. Nos. 4040, 4313/2005 and 3981/2005. They could have been selected in respect of certain steams. They have lost the opportunity. As they have suffered they are to be granted compensation. I am inclined to fix compensation at the rate of Rs. 25,000/- for each of the petitioner in writ petitions as they have approached this Court subject to the condition that they are not selected after the selection process is undertaken on merits inter se the petitioners who are before this Court, I may hereby clarify that does not necessarily mean that the candidates who had not approached before the counselling was done would be entitled to the said relief. ( 11. ) KEEPING in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I am disposed to think that the petitioner should be awarded a sum of Rs. 25,000/-towards compensation to be paid by respondent No. 2, the Board of Secondary Education, Madhya Pradesh, Bhopal within a period of three months and it is so directed. ( 12. ) THE writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove. There shall be no order as to costs.