( 1 ) THE petitioner is seeking a direction to the first respondent/university to announce his result for the subject "industrial drives" for which he has taken the examination during the year 1999 with Registration no. 34081. ( 2 ) IT is the case of the petitioner that he is a resident of Hyderabad. He took admission to the second respondent/college for prosecuting his studies in Bachelor of Engineering in electrical and Electronics, at Chitradurga. He has joined the course in the year 1993-94. He was given registration No. 34081 (E and E) to appear for the examination. Having prosecuted his studies in the College, he passed all the subjects in the four years Engineering course, except in the subject "industrial drives". He took the examination for the subject "industrial drives" in the eighth semester conducted during the month of March/ april 1999 by the first respondent/university. He wrote answers to all the questions and was expecting that he would surely pass in the examination. ( 3 ) THE first respondent/university declared the results of the examination of the eighth semester conducted during 1999. The petitioner's registration number did not find place in the result list. This made the petitioner to contact the second respondent. The second respondent did not give satisfactory reply. The petitioner visited the first respondent and made queries. They asked him to contact the third respondent. The petitioner contacted the third respondent as well, by approaching one Mr. Nagappa, who was the Head of Department at the relevant time and also another person by name, Nethaji. Petitioner asserts that both the aforesaid persons verified the result of the petitioner in the Computer and informed him that he had passed in the subject for which he had taken the examination. Although the petitioner waited for his result to be announced, no steps were taken by the first respondent/ university to announce the result. In the circumstances, he was constrained to make a written representation on 6-2-2002 addressed to the second respondent/college, informing the Principal that although he had been to the university and gave a letter requesting them to announce the result, there has been no response and therefore action be taken immediately. Upon receipt of the said letter, the Principal of second respondent/college has addressed a letter dated 12-2-2002 to the Registrar (Evaluation ). Upon receipt of the said letter, the Principal of second respondent/college has addressed a letter dated 12-2-2002 to the Registrar (Evaluation ). The tenor of the letter shows that the petitioner did take up the examination conducted during March/april 1999 for the subject bearing Code No. 'g83g' Industrial Drives, but his result had not been announced. The letter further recites that all documents showing that the student had appeared for the examination were being enclosed for necessary action to be taken by the respondent. A perusal of the said letter also reveals the details of the enclosed letters, namely : 1]. Daily account of answer books despatch. 2]. Room allotment copy. 3]. Invigilator's diary. As no action was taken thereafter by the university, the petitioner wrote a letter on 14-11-2002 addressed to the Principal of the College, requesting to take immediate action as he intended to appear for Civil Services Examination and announcement of his result was essential for that. This letter is forwarded by the Principal to the Registrar (Evaluation) of the first respondent with a request to announce the result of the student. When the University did not take any steps to announce the result, the petitioner has approached this Court. ( 4 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the petitioner contends that the petitioner has taken the examination conducted during April 1999. which fact has been admitted and supported by the Institution where he has studied. There was absolutely no reason why the petitioner's results should not have been announced. The lapse on the part of the University has led to serious consequences on the career of the petitioner and therefore, the petitioner is entitled for a direction as sought in the Writ Petition. The petitioner has also sought for compensation for the inaction and lapse on the part of the University. He has sought for declaration of his result and for a direction to the respondent Nos. 1 and 2 to pay compensation in a sum of Rs. 6 lakhs. He has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions : 1. Rabindra Nath Goshal v. University of calcutta reported in AIR 1992 Cal 207 . 2. Ajit Kumar Baral v. Utkal University and others reported in AIR 1990 Orissa 174 (DB ). 3. S. A. Jaffer v. University of Gulbarga reparted in AIR 1989 Kant 174. He has placed reliance on the following judgments in support of his contentions : 1. Rabindra Nath Goshal v. University of calcutta reported in AIR 1992 Cal 207 . 2. Ajit Kumar Baral v. Utkal University and others reported in AIR 1990 Orissa 174 (DB ). 3. S. A. Jaffer v. University of Gulbarga reparted in AIR 1989 Kant 174. ( 5 ) THE first respondent/university has filed its statement of objections. It has denied the assertion made by the petitioner that he appeared for the eighth semester examination in the subject 'industrial Drives' with registration No. 34081 during March/april 1999. It has contended that there was absolutely no record or documents available with the respandent/university to evidence the fact that the petitioner did take the examination. The question of announcing the result therefore did mot arise. It further contends that as per the practice adopted in the University, the records pertaining to the examination would be kept far a period of one year from the date of examination and thereafter, they will be de-stroyed. As the petitioner was seeking a direction to announce the result after a lapse of three years and seven months, the answer scripts of the examination and other records pertaining to it were not available with the university and hence question of announcing the results did not arise. The two records available with the university namely, the tabulation sheet and the marks list in respect of the examination held in March/april 1999 for the eighth semester B. E. Course do not disclose that the petitioner took the examination with registration No. 34081. ( 6 ) BY way of additional statement of objections, the first respondent/university has contended that the so called true copy of the 'daily account of answer scripts despatch' for coded examination does not contain any proof that the document was sent by the College and the receipt of it was acknowledged by the university. With reference to the other documents namely the room allotment sheet and invigilator's diary, the genuineness of the documents are denied by the University. The university has taken a stand in paragraph-4 of the additional statement of objections that the documents produced by the pelitioner are all fabricated and have come into existence after the entire process of examination is over. The university has taken a stand in paragraph-4 of the additional statement of objections that the documents produced by the pelitioner are all fabricated and have come into existence after the entire process of examination is over. They further allege that the second respondent/college in order to help the pelitioner has resorted to inserting his register number in the documents. ( 7 ) SRI Rajendra Kumar, learned Counsel appearing for the first respondent/university contends that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed principally on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioner as he has approached this Court after a lapse of nearly 2 years. He further submits that there are several disputed questions of facts involved in this writ petition which cannot be adjudicated in the writ proceedings and if at all the petitioner was aggrieved, he should have approached the civil Court seeking redressal. ( 8 ) THE second respondent/college has appeared through the Principal and has filed the statement of objections enclosing several documents. The College has admitted the fact that the petitioner was a student of the College duly admitted during 1993-94. Further it is specifically admitted that he had passed all the subjects in Engineering Course except the subject "industrial Drives" having the Code no. G83g. As regards the crucial and disputed question about the petitioner taking the examination during March 1999 for the subject in question, the second respondent/college has specifically stated that the candidate had in fact taken the examination. In this regard. it has produced several documents alongwith the statement of objections. The documents that are relied upon in support of this assertion are the room allotment list maintained by the second respondent, copy of which is produced as Annexure 3'. It is further stated by the College that the answer scripl of the petitioner in respect of the subject "industrial drives" (Electrical and Electronics) with registration No. 34081 was delivered to one Sri ramesh H. Rathod. a representative of the kuvempu University on 16-3-1999 personally along with the other answer scripts of various subjects for which the examination was held on 15-3-99 with a covering letter addressed to the first respondent/registrar (Evaluation) enclosing a daily account of answer books despatched and the Invigilator's diary. It was also asserted that the receipt of the same has been duly acknowledged by the said Sri Ramesh H. Rathod. It was also asserted that the receipt of the same has been duly acknowledged by the said Sri Ramesh H. Rathod. The copy of the acknowledgment and the copy of the covering letter along with a copy of the daily account of answer books despatch and also the copy of the invigilator's diary are produced by the second respondent/college Vide Annexure 4', 5'. 6' and 'v respectively. ( 9 ) PLACING reliance on these records, the college contends that these documents conclusively show that the petitioner had attended the examination for the subject in question. The College further asserts that it had written a letter to the University enclosing copies of these documents and requesting the University to take further action in the matter. Insofar as the other allegations made by the petitioner holding that the College also is liable for the lapse, the second respondent/college has denied the same. ( 10 ) LEARNED Counsel appearing for the second respondent contends that the records available with the College did show that the petitioner had taken the examination held during March/april 1999 and it was for this reason the College had requested the University by enclosing necessary documents to announce the result of the petitioner, if the University failed to announce the result, the College cannot be held liable. As regards the claim for compensation made by the petitioner, learned counsel contends that the petitioner himself has approached the College belatedly and therefore no fault can be found with the College in not taking immediate steps. ( 11 ) I have heard the learned Counsel for the parties and closely scrutinised the documents produced by the respective parties. The questions that arise for my consideration are : 1. Whether the petitioner has taken the. examination conducted during the month of march 1999 in respect of Ihe subject "industrial Drives" and if so. whether the first respondent/university failed to discharge its duties in announcing the result of the petitioner? 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for reliefs as sought in the writ petition? ( 12 ) THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner has joined the Engineering Course in the second respondent/college during the academic year 1993-94; that he has pursued his studies and written examination with registration No. 34081 and cleared all subjects except the subject "industrial Drives". 2. Whether the petitioner is entitled for reliefs as sought in the writ petition? ( 12 ) THE undisputed facts are that the petitioner has joined the Engineering Course in the second respondent/college during the academic year 1993-94; that he has pursued his studies and written examination with registration No. 34081 and cleared all subjects except the subject "industrial Drives". It is also not in dispute that the petitioner had submitted an application for registration for eighth semester examination by paying the requisite fee to take the examination in the subject "industrial Drives" for the eighth semester to be held during the month of March 1999. To evidence that the petitioner did apply paying the requisite fee, the College has produced two documents at Annexures 1' and 2' respectively. These documents are not disputed bythe University. The fact whether the petitioner has appeared for the examination largely depends upon the documents that are produced by the College. If the documents produced by the College disclose that the petitioner had taken the examination, then the controversy raised in the petitioner gets answered, particularly because the stand of the University is that it does not have any document in its custody to show that the petitioner has taken the examination. The relevant documents produced by the College are in the form of room allotment at Annexure 3', acknowledgment issued by the official of the University vide annexure 4' and the despatch letter sent to the University, enclosing the answer books vide Annexure 5' and the daily account of answer books despatch sent vide Annexure 6' along with the extract of Invigilator's Diary. A perusal of Annexure 3', the room allotment letter discloses that the petitioner's registration Number is shown as a last entry at Annexure 3' and he is shown to have been allotted to CLH3. The subject code is also mentioned as 'g83g' (Electrical and Electronics) which is referrable to the subject "industrial Drives". The counsel for the university however contends that the fact that the registration number of the candidate is shown below the dotted line at the end discloses that it is a doubdful entry. University also doubts this entry by drawing the attention of the Court to the total number of the students who had taken the examination which is shown as 17 + 1 = 18. University also doubts this entry by drawing the attention of the Court to the total number of the students who had taken the examination which is shown as 17 + 1 = 18. ( 13 ) THE next document is the acknowledgment issued by one Sri Ramesh H. Rathod, official of the University for having received 15 bundles of answer papers from the College on 16-3-1999 at 10. 40 a. m. personally. This acknowledgment shows that the subject 'g83g' is ione of the answer papers the receipt of which is acknowledged and that pertains to "industrial Drives" bearing Code No. G83g. Leatrned Counsel for the petitioner has placed considerable reliance on this document to contend that this clinches the issue, whereas the Counsel for the first respondent shows that the original of this document is not produced. The second respondent/college has produced this document. The Principal of the College has sworn to the affidavit and as also to the veracity of this document. The other documents of importance that is relied upon by the petitioner is at Annexure 6' which is a daily account of answer books despatched and this document contains the details of the subject for which the petitioner appeared for the examination, his name, registration number and the factum of despatch of the said answer book are mentioned. The stand of the University is wholesale denial of all these documents stating that they are concocted documents created only for the purpose of helping the students by the Institution. ( 14 ) ALL these documents were forwarded to the University while the Principal wrote a letter dated 12-2-2002, copy of which is produced by the petitioner at Annexure 'b'. A perusal of this letter particularly with regard to the details of enclosures sent would disclose that the daily despatch of answer books and room allotment copy and Invigilator's diary were enclosed by the Principal when he addressed this letter to the Registrar (Evaluation), confirming that the student had taken the examination and requesting the University to announce the results. It is important to note here that the receipt of this letter by the university is not denied by the University. If the University was of the view that these documents were created and concocted by the Institution only to help the student, the University ought to have immediately responded to it. It is important to note here that the receipt of this letter by the university is not denied by the University. If the University was of the view that these documents were created and concocted by the Institution only to help the student, the University ought to have immediately responded to it. As the question involved was se:rious and related to the career of a student, the University could not have kept quiet when none other than the Principal of a College had taken up the cause of the student putting the blame on the University stating that it had not announced the result of the student who had in fact taken the examination and whose answer paper was submitted to the University. The gravity of the situation demanded the University to immediately hold an enquiry if it was of the view that the College was coming with wrong assertions or if it had entertained any doubt about the misplacement of the answer script of the student. It was imperative on the part of the University to initiate action as the college had enclosed the acknowledgement issued by one of the representatives of the university who had received the answer scripts personally. From February 2 ( ('02 till the filing of the statement of 10-2003, the Uni versity has not taken any action to unearth the truth. 'the stand taken by it now stating that the University was not expected to maintain the records beyond a period of one year and therefore it was at a loss to find out whether the student had in fact appeared for the examination, cannot be accepted. ( 15 ) MUCH is said about the delay on the part of the student in approaching this Court. The student is from Hyderabad. He has pursued his studies in Chitradurga. He has asserted in the petition that he has visited the college and the University time and again to enquire about the fate of his examination. Only when no positive response was made and he lost the hope of getting any help from the college and the University, he has rushed to this Court. The explanation offered by the petitioner that he was expecting favourable action from the authorities deserve to be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. Only when no positive response was made and he lost the hope of getting any help from the college and the University, he has rushed to this Court. The explanation offered by the petitioner that he was expecting favourable action from the authorities deserve to be accepted in the facts and circumstances of the case. It cannot be forgotten that it was the duty of the University to announce the results. ( 16 ) IT has to be held therefore, that the pe titioner has in fact taken the examination in the subject during the month of March 1999. ( 17 ) THE next question that arises for consideration is as to what is the relief to which the petitioner is entitled to. The answer paper of the petitioner is not available. Except for this subject the petitioner has passed in all other subjects. It is nearly seven years since the student has written the examination. This court will not be justified in asking the student to write the examination once again as the passage of time would put the petitioner to a serious disadvantage to prepare for the examination and write the same. ( 18 ) COUNSEL for the petitioner has relied on the judgment of this Court reported in AIR 1989 Kant 174. This was a case where the student had sought for re-valuation and re-totalling of his answer paper. The University came up with a stand that the answer papers were not available. The University had in fact not maintained the answer papers as required. The Court held that adverse inference had to be drawn against the first respondent/university and the university was directed to announce the result declaring that the petitioner had passed. In the instant case, this Court had directed the University by order dated 24-5-04 to produce relevant documents forwarded by the second respondent/college to show the names of students who had taken the examination in the month of March 1999 and also the relevant documents to show the answer scripts received by the University from the particular College. This direction is not complied with and no documents are produced pursuant to the order passed. However, during the course of arguments, learned Counsel submits that the stand of the University is that no documents pertaining to the examination taken by the petitioner are available with the university. This direction is not complied with and no documents are produced pursuant to the order passed. However, during the course of arguments, learned Counsel submits that the stand of the University is that no documents pertaining to the examination taken by the petitioner are available with the university. Despite a direction issued by this court, the documents are not produced. Assertion is made that no documents are available. ( 19 ) STRONG reliance is placed by the learned counsel for the petitioner on the decision reported in AIR 1990 Orissa 174. It was also a case where the answer paper of the concerned candidate was lost. The University had, by applying proportionate quotient method arrived at the average marks and declared the result of the petitioner therein. The Orissa high Court held that when an answer paper of a candidate was found lost, his results cannot be declared unless he is asked to appear again or else on notional basis by giving the candidate marks by taking into account his average performance. The High Court however, observed that it was desirable for the university to have a provision of giving the marks in the missing paper by taking the average performance in other papers into consideration so that the candidate is not put to harassment for no fault of his. ( 20 ) IN view of the two authorities cited above, it has to be held that the University has to declare the result of the petitioner by taking the average marks obtained by him in other subjects during the final year. However, this exercise is only for the purpose of assigning the marks to the student, but insofar as the pass marks are concerned, the petitioner is entitled for declaration that he has passed in the examination. This order this Court has to pass in view of the exceptional and peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case. ( 21 ) THOUGH the petitioner has sought for payment of compensation, contending that he has lost bright opportunities of establishing himself in his profession or career and although it has to be stated that this is an unfortunate case where, on account of the lapse on the part of the authorities, the petitioner was denied of declaration of his result, it is not permissible in these proceedings to go into the question of assessment of damages and payment of compensation. In fact the direction issued to the University to declare the petitioner as duly passed is itself sufficient in the instant case to come to the aid of the petitioner. Hence I pass the following : the writ petition is allowed. The respondent/university is directed to declare the result of the petitioner declaring him as duly passed taking the average marks obtained by him during the final year as the basis for assgning marks to the subject in question. In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled for payment of costs of these proceedings. The respondent/university shall pay tine costs of the proceedings in a sum of Rs. 6,000/- (Rupees six thousand only) to the petitioner. Petition allowed.