JUDGMENT: ASHIM KUMAR BANERJEE, J. (1) THE facts of this case depict the callous functioning of a limb of education department of the State, as a result of which the future of a student has been blinked. (2) THE respondent No.1 in FMA 174 of 2002 was a student of Electrical engineering in Licentiate Course under the State Council for Engineering and technical Education. He sat for the examination in 1979. He got good marks in the examination save and except in two papers where he unfortunately failed. In the next semester he again appeared for those two subjects. However, when the mark-sheet was given, he found that he was shown absent in those two papers. This was in 1980. He made a complaint to the Principal of the college. As per advice of the Principal he made a complaint to the Council. The Council took back his mark-sheet with the verbal assurance that he would be given appropriate corrected mark-sheet. He gave umpteen reminders, but in vain. Ultimately he gave a notice demanding justice and filed a writ petition in 1984 being CR 10268 (W) of 1984. (3) DESPITE service of notice none appeared on behalf of the Council. Rule was issued, even then the appearance of the Council could not be ensured before 2001. In 2001 for the first time after a notice of contempt was issued, the appearance of the Council could be ensured. The Council then filed an affidavit in 2001 disclosing an investigation report of 1981 wherefrom it appears that as per the Council they had shown the respondent No. 1 as absent as they did not receive his answer scripts for evaluation whereas the Principal of the college asserted that the student did appear in the examination and the answer scripts were duly sent to the Council for evaluation. After investigation the student was asked to appear at the next examination which he refused. No document was disclosed as to how the concerned student was asked to appear for the next examination. No explanation was given as to why the copy of the investigation report was not served on the concerned student and as to under whose instruction investigation was sought to be carried out and such decision was taken. No document was disclosed as to how the concerned student was asked to appear for the next examination. No explanation was given as to why the copy of the investigation report was not served on the concerned student and as to under whose instruction investigation was sought to be carried out and such decision was taken. (4) THE learned single Judge by judgment and order dated May 23, 2001 allowed his writ petition and directed a proper mark-sheet to be given by declaring him successful in those two papers upon awarding appropriate marks on the said two papers. The learned single Judge however, did not award any compensation in absence of any appropriate relief claimed there for. However, considering the facts and circumstances of the case His Lordship awarded cost of Rs. 1.5 lakhs as against the State Council. (5) BEING aggrieved by and dissatisfied with the order of the learned single Judge, the State Council filed an appeal being FMA 174 of 2002. The respondent No. 1 being the concerned student also filed another appeal being fma 175 of 2002 asking for compensation. (6) MR. S. Dasgupta, learned Counsel appearing for the State Council contends in support of his appeal that once the answer scripts could not be evaluated, the Council had no authority to declare him passed in those two papers unless and until he sits for the next examination. He further submits that the learned Judge erred in awarding cost of Rs. 1.5 lakhs to be paid to the concerned student. (7) THE learned Counsel appearing for the writ petitioner/appellant in fma 175 of 2002 submits that when the learned single Judge allowed the writ petition by accepting the contentions of the writ petitioner, the learned single judge should have moulded the relief by granting appropriate compensation to him. (8) WE have considered the rival contentions of the parties. The facts so recorded above clearly depict as to how the writ petitioner was ill-treated by the Council for so long, i.e. before filing the writ petition as well as after filing of the writ petition and even up till date. (9) THE appeal was partly heard by us on the last occasion, when we asked Mr. Dasgupta to take instruction whether the Council was prepared to comply with the direction of the learned single Judge so that we can consider his prayer for reduction of costs. (9) THE appeal was partly heard by us on the last occasion, when we asked Mr. Dasgupta to take instruction whether the Council was prepared to comply with the direction of the learned single Judge so that we can consider his prayer for reduction of costs. The matter was time to time adjourned. Mr. Dasgupta today contends that the Council is not in a position to accept the verdict of the learned single Judge as they are hopeful that they would succeed in the appeal. (10) THE writ petitioner sat for the examination in 1979. He could not pass in two papers. He again sat in 1980 examination and since then he is fighting for his result for the next examination which has not been disclosed by the Council up till date, although 27 years have passed in between. It is true that the writ petitioner did not make any prayer for compensation. Hence, the learned Judge hesitated to award any damage by way of compensation. We feel that this is an appropriate case where appropriate compensation must be given to the writ petitioner. However, sitting in writ Court it was difficult for the court to assess compensation in absence of appropriate particulars. We grant leave to the writ petitioner to sue the State Council and the erring parties for appropriate compensation before the civil Court. (11) CONSIDERING the factual scenario we do not find any scope of interference with regard to awarding of cost. (12) FMA 174 of 2002 fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant would pay cost of this appeal assessed at Rs.1 lakh in addition to the cost awarded by the learned single Judge in favour of respondent No.1. (13) WITH regard to FMA 175 of 2002 we grant liberty to the appellant therein to approach the civil Court in terms of the direction recorded above. (14) IN case Civil Court is approached, the Civil Court while considering the prayer for compensation, should take into consideration the costs awarded by this Court, before awarding compensation. FMA 175 of 2002 is disposed of accordingly without any order as to costs. F