ORDER 1. The petitioner has approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking correction of her mark sheet of Class-X Examination of the Academic Year 2011-12 to the extent the said mark sheet reflects 10 marks secured out of 100 in the subject of Mathematics and with further prayer for grant of compensation to the tune of rupees one lac against the respondent/Board. 2. After issuance of notice to the respondent/Board and during the pendency of this writ petition, an application for taking additional facts and documents on record was filed by petitioner in the shape of IA No. 8620/2012 for bringing on record the answer-sheet of the petitioner of the subject of Mathematices, obtained by applying under the Right to Information Act, 2005 disclosing the petitioner to have actually secured 100 out of 100 marks in Mathematics. 3. The fact of the petitioner having actually secured 100 out of 100 marks instead of wrongly showing 10 out of 100 marks in the mark sheet is not disputed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondent/Board though no reply has been filed by the respondent/Board despite grant of three (3) opportunities. 4. In view of the clear admission on the part of the respondent/Board that the award of 10 marks out of 100 was a mistake, the only question that this Court needs to decide is the quantum of compensation and issuance of fresh corrected mark sheet. 5. The petitioner does not contend that she lost any opportunity of appearing in a Competitive Examination or getting admitted to any Professional Course or securing an employment. Obviously, the petitioner was a Class-X student who did not have these opportunities and, therefore the loss caused to the petitioner is only in regard to mental agony and the disrepute incurred by a highly meritorious student. 6. The revelation, to a highly meritorious student, of having failed in a particular subject in which the student has actually done well, comes as a shock. Such shock can very well lead to disastrous consequences of loosing confidence in oneself thereby failing to do well in future and in the process loosing interest in academic life. Instances are not uncommon where highly meritorious students have taken extreme step of committing suicide on being wrongly awarded abysmally low marks. 7. Such shock can very well lead to disastrous consequences of loosing confidence in oneself thereby failing to do well in future and in the process loosing interest in academic life. Instances are not uncommon where highly meritorious students have taken extreme step of committing suicide on being wrongly awarded abysmally low marks. 7. Fortunately, the petitioner before this Court was courageous enough to withstand the trauma of having failed in Mathematics Subject of Xth Class Examination and continues to pursue her studies in Class-XI for which this Court records it’s deep sense of appreciation and admiration. 8. The respondent-Board has acted in a most callously careless and irresponsible manner in awarding 10 marks only when the actual marks secured by the petitioner were 100. This kind of negligence demonstrated by a Statutory Body, i.e., Madhya Pradesh Board of Secondary Education, which is an instrumentality of the State under Article 12 of the Constitution of India clearly falls within the category of being culpable. 9. The respondent/Board thus has exposed itself to the rigour of imposition of cost and compensation to be imposed upon it for being paid to the petitioner to assuage, to whatever little extent, her agony and trauma. 10. This Court is now required to dwell into the aspect of quantum of compensation. Petitioner has prayed for compensation of rupees one lakh. Admittedly the culpable negligence of the respondent Board has not resulted into any tangible loss as discussed supra and thus award of compensation as sought for in entirety is not called for, Moreso, award of compensation under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for undisputed acts of culpable negligence ought not to result in undue enrichment of petitioner. Similarly on the other hand this Court cannot ignore the fact that no amount of monetary compensation can indemnify the mental and psychological damage incurred. There is another crucial view-point from which the aspect of quantum deserves judicial scrutiny i.e., exemplary cost. Whenever an instrumentality of the State acts in wanton disregard of the limits of reasonability set by the scheme of the Constitution, it shakes the confidence of a common man in the Rule of Law, thereby exposing itself to the rigours of payment of exemplary cost in addition to the actual costs incurrecd. Whenever an instrumentality of the State acts in wanton disregard of the limits of reasonability set by the scheme of the Constitution, it shakes the confidence of a common man in the Rule of Law, thereby exposing itself to the rigours of payment of exemplary cost in addition to the actual costs incurrecd. This is necessary to instill the lost confidence in the Rule of Law by punishing the wantonly negligent thereby in the process preventing recurrence of such culpable aberrations in future. Besides, exemplary cost caters to the lost time and energy energy of the Courts by adjudicating an avoidable litigation. 11. Pertinently this is not the first instance when the respondent/Board has been found to have indulged in undisputed culpable negligence. This Court on an earlier occasion while allowing W.P. No. 5678/2010 (Ku. Kanchan Parihar vs. M.P. Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal) directed grant of compensation after finding that 30 marks out of 100 were awarded to the said petitioner in Mathematics subject of Class-X Examination of 2010; whereas in actuality the said petitioner had secured 100 out of 100 marks. The order passed on 5.12.2011 in W.P. No. 5676/2010 granting compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- was not only affirmed by rejection of W.A. No. 46/2012 on 27.1.2012, but further received the stamp of approval by the Apex Court by dismissal of SLP (Civil) No. 20709/2012 by the order dated 4.7.2012. 12. This petition is accordingly allowed in the following terms:- (1) the respondent Board is directed to issue a fresh mark sheet of the petitioner of Class-X Examination of the Academic Year 2011-12 showing the marks obtained by the petitioner in the subject of Mathematics as 100 out of 100 within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, if not already issued. (2) the respondent/M.P. Board of Secondary Education is directed to pay compensation to the tune of Rs. 75,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which shall be recovered from the erring employee(Officer of the Board) after fixing responsibility as per law; and (3) the respondent/M.P. Board of Secondary Education shall pay actual cost of this avoidable litigation, which is quantified at Rs. 75,000/- to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a copy of this order, which shall be recovered from the erring employee(Officer of the Board) after fixing responsibility as per law; and (3) the respondent/M.P. Board of Secondary Education shall pay actual cost of this avoidable litigation, which is quantified at Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) to be paid to the petitioner by the respondent/Board within a period of 30 days from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (4) the respondent/Board is further directed to pay exemplary cost of Rs. 5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) in favour of M/s. Institute of Advocate Continuing Legal Education, Gwalior, for having wasted the precious time and energy of this Court in adjudicating this avoidable piece of litigation.