JUDGMENT B.N. Mahapatra, J. This writ application has been filed with a prayer to direct opp. Parties to pay compensation to the petitioner to the tune of Rs.5 lakhs for mental agony/shock, harassment and loss of one valuable academic year caused to him. 2. Petitioner’s case in a nutshell is that the petitioner belongs to a very poor family and prosecutes his study from a little source of income of his father, who is a small farmer. He has a strong will to do something in future after graduation and to lead a dignified life in the society. He appeared in the Annual High School Certificate Examination, 2013 held on scheduled dates in Panchayat High School, Betada in all subjects. The results of annual H.S.C. Examination, 2013 were published on 30.4.2013 in the website of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. From the said website the petitioner came to know that he has been declared as ‘fail’ and 06 marks have been awarded to him in mathematics paper. He further found that in total he has secured 412 marks out of 600 marks. Soon after knowing result from the website of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha, the petitioner on 3.5.2013 deposited a sum of Rs.260/-for rechecking of Mathematics paper and supply of Xerox copy of the same. Since no result was communicated to the petitioner immediately, he approached this Court on 14.05.2013 in W.P.(C) No. 11556 of 2013. During pendency of the said writ petition, a revised mark sheet was issued by the opp. Parties which was received by the petitioner on 19.06.2013 enhancing his mark in Mathematics answer script from 06 to 89 and declaring the petitioner to have passed in 1st Division. Since the result of re-addition of marks was communicated to the petitioner, this Court disposed of the earlier writ petition inter alia with the observation that so far the prayer made in the writ petition, nothing remained to be decided. Thereafter, the present writ petition is filed claiming compensation of Rs.5 lakhs for mental agony, shock, harassment meted out to the petitioner and loss of one valuable academic year caused to him. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the action of opp. Parties declaring the result of the petitioner as ‘fail’ is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law in view of the fact that as per the opp. 3. Mr. Nayak, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner submitted that the action of opp. Parties declaring the result of the petitioner as ‘fail’ is illegal, arbitrary and contrary to law in view of the fact that as per the opp. Parties’ own admission, the petitioner secured 89 marks and passed in 1st Division, but it was published in the website that he secured 06 marks in Mathematics and had failed. The opp. Parties in their counter affidavit have never stated/explained any reason of their negligence in publishing the wrong result. The fresh mark sheet issued by the opp. Parties was received by the petitioner on 19.6.2013 after expiry of the last date fixed for submitting application for higher studies. As per the revised mark sheet, which was issued after rechecking, the petitioner got 1st Division in H.S.C. Examination, 2013 securing 495 marks out of 600, i.e., 82.5% and became eligible to take admission in a good College of the State for prosecuting higher studies. For the wrong committed by the opp. Parties, he could not take admission in a better College as a result of which, the petitioner would either be deprived of getting admission in a good College or lose one valuable academic year of his career. After knowing the result from the website that he was declared failed by the opp. Parties, the petitioner was very much perturbed mentally and might have committed suicide, if his parents and friends would not have given him mental courage. The petitioner so also his parents were made to suffer harassment and humiliation in the society for the negligent and illegal act of opposite parties for which they are vicariously liable to adequately compensate the petitioner and his family members for the sufferings and mental agony caused to them. The near and dear or the society could not compensate the said loss in any manner. Thus, it was submitted that opposite parties are liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for their negligent and illegal action. Concluding his argument, Mr. Nayak prayed for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opp. Parties-Board submitted that pursuant to the application of the petitioner, his Mathematics paper was rechecked and re-addition was made. Concluding his argument, Mr. Nayak prayed for compensation of Rs.5 lakhs to the petitioner. 4. Per contra, Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the opp. Parties-Board submitted that pursuant to the application of the petitioner, his Mathematics paper was rechecked and re-addition was made. It was found that the petitioner has secured 89 marks instead of 06 marks and accordingly, a revised certificate was issued showing him to have passed in 1st Division; the Deputy Secretary, Balasore Zone received the said revised Certificate from opposite party No.2 on 10.06.2013 who in turn sent it to the Headmaster of the concerned High School where the petitioner last studied; the petitioner received the same on 19.6.2013. The claim of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs has been made by the petitioner taking advantage of Sec. 35-A of the Court Fees Act as being a minor, he is not required to pay court fee. 5. Referring to various provisions of the Board, Mr. Dash submitted that the Board is a Body constituted to regulate and supervise Secondary Education. Under Section 19 of the Board of Secondary Education Act, 1979 (for short, “Act, 1979”) the Board is competent to constitute Committees and accordingly, the Board has constituted the Committees and one of such Committees is “Examination Committee”. The Board framed its regulation which is notified by the Government of Odisha on 22.12.1955 vide Notification No.11283-E and Examination Committee also finds place in Regulation 2 (c) of the Regulation. Regulation 22 speaks about the power of the Examination Committee. In 2013, the Examination Committee issued instructions to the Assistant Examiner, Deputy Chief Examiner, Chief Examiner and Scrutinizer (for short, “examiners”) in connection with evaluation of answer scripts of H.S.C./C.T./C.P.Ed./ Madhyama Examinations. In the said instructions, it was clearly indicated that the examiners are responsible for the error-less valuation of answer scripts. Therefore, if there is any mistake, it is due to the examiners, those who are involved in the process of evaluation. 6. It was further submitted that publication of result of the candidates is always provisional. Therefore, under Regulation 43, if any candidate is dissatisfied with the result, he may request the Secretary of the Board for rechecking/re-addition of marks in any paper within one month of publication of the result with prescribed fee and form. Therefore, opp. 6. It was further submitted that publication of result of the candidates is always provisional. Therefore, under Regulation 43, if any candidate is dissatisfied with the result, he may request the Secretary of the Board for rechecking/re-addition of marks in any paper within one month of publication of the result with prescribed fee and form. Therefore, opp. parties are in no way negligent or careless in their duties and they are not liable to pay any compensation to the petitioner. However, if at all this Court decides to award any compensation in favour of the petitioner, that may be realized from the persons, who are involved in the process of evaluation and responsible for such laches. In support of his contention, Mr. Dash relied upon judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa v. D. Sunakar and another dated 14.11.2006 passed in Civil Appeal (Civil) 4926 of 2006 (Arising out of SLP (C) No.17990 of 2005). It was further contended by Mr. Dash that all the persons involved in the process of evaluation of answer papers are not the employees of the Board. The Board does not have any administrative control over the said persons as they are the employees of the School and Mass Education Department of the Government of Odisha. 7. Mr. Dash further submitted that the Government of Odisha, Department of Higher Education had made an advertisement in daily Odia ‘The Samaja” dated 26.7.2013, Cuttack regarding admission into +2 and +3 Classes for Academic Year 2013-14. Therefore, the petitioner can take admission in +2 Class for the academic session 2013-14. Hence, question of loss of one academic year does not arise. Concluding his argument, Mr. Dash prayed for dismissal of the writ petition. 8. From the rival contentions of the parties, the questions that fall for consideration by this Court are as follows: (i) Whether in the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner is entitled to get any compensation? (ii) If the answer to question No.(i) is in affirmative then who is liable to pay such compensation and what would be the quantum of compensation? (iii) What order? 9. Since all the above questions are inter-linked, they are dealt with together. 10. (ii) If the answer to question No.(i) is in affirmative then who is liable to pay such compensation and what would be the quantum of compensation? (iii) What order? 9. Since all the above questions are inter-linked, they are dealt with together. 10. Undisputed facts are as follows: The petitioner who is represented through his father-guardian had appeared in H.S.C. Examination, 2013 in Panchayat High School, Betada and results of the said Examination were published on 30.4.2013 in the website of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha from which the petitioner came to know that though he secured 412 marks in total, out of 600 marks, he was declared failed as he secured 06 marks only in Mathematics paper. Immediately thereafter, the petitioner on 3.5.2013 deposited Rs.260/-for rechecking of the Mathematics paper and supply of Xerox copy of the said answer paper. Since the petitioner was not provided with the result of the rechecking /re-addition of the Mathematics paper and Xerox copy of the said paper immediately, he filed W.P.(C) No.11556 of 2013 on 14.5.2013 with the following prayer : “In the facts and circumstances of the case, the petitioner most respectfully prays this Hon’ble Court to be graciously pleased to allow the writ petition, issue of a writ or direction in the nature of certiorari or any other appropriate writ or direction quashing the decision of the opp. parties declaring the result of Annual H.S.C. Examination 2013 in respect of the petitioner as Fall under Annexure-2. And further issue a writ of direction in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or direction to the opp. parties to publish the result of the petitioner after rechecking the Mathematics paper and issue the mark sheet in his favour accordingly.” 11. The matter was listed before this Court on 26.06.2013 and this Court directed the petitioner to serve extra copy of the writ petition on learned counsel for opposite party-BSE, who was directed to obtain instructions in the matter and the matter was directed to be listed on 08.07.2013. The matter was listed before this Court on 26.06.2013 and this Court directed the petitioner to serve extra copy of the writ petition on learned counsel for opposite party-BSE, who was directed to obtain instructions in the matter and the matter was directed to be listed on 08.07.2013. During pendency of the said writ petition, opposite parties after coming to know that the petitioner secured 89 marks instead of 06 marks in the Mathematics paper issued the revised mark sheet to the Deputy Secretary, Balasore Zone to hand over the same to the Headmaster of the School where the petitioner last studied and the Headmaster supplied the said revised mark sheet to the petitioner on 19.6.2013. In the above circumstances, the earlier writ petition, i.e., W.P.(C) No.11556 of 2013 was disposed of on 8.7.2013 with the following observation: “3. The petitioner is a brilliant student and he is suffering due to no fault of him. Because of the fault of the Board officials, career of the petitioner is going to be marred. However, so far as prayer in the present writ petition is concerned, after rechecking he has been awarded with 89 marks in Mathematics paper. Hence, nothing remains in the present writ petition to be decided. 4. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of. However, it is open to the petitioner to avail any remedy permissible under law”. 12. Petitioner’s claim is that by the time revised mark sheet was supplied to him on 19.06.2013, the last dates for submission of application to take admission in +2 class through online and offline fixed to 11.06.2013 and 12.06.2013 respectively for regular students were over. Thus, the case of the petitioner is that since the revised mark sheet was supplied to him on 19.6.2013, he could not apply for his higher study as regular student. In support of his contention, he relied upon Annexure-4, which is a copy of the key dates obtained from the website of Higher Education Department. In Columns 3 and 4 of the said key dates, the last date for making application to take admission in the higher studies in respect of regular students has been notified as dated 11.06.2013 and 12.06.2013 for online and offline respectively. 13. Opp. In Columns 3 and 4 of the said key dates, the last date for making application to take admission in the higher studies in respect of regular students has been notified as dated 11.06.2013 and 12.06.2013 for online and offline respectively. 13. Opp. parties strongly denied the petitioner’s claim for grant of compensation of Rs.5 lakhs basically on the following grounds: (i) The publication of result of the candidates is always provisional. Therefore, under Regulation 43 if any candidate is dissatisfied with the result, he may request the Secretary of the Board for rechecking/re-addition of marks in any paper within one month of the date of publication of the result with prescribed fees and form. As per order of this Court dated 02.11.1992, in the case of Reena Dei Vrs. Board of Secondary Education, Orissa (OJC No. 752 of 1992), the Board was directed to communicate the result of re-addition within three months. Therefore, opp. Parties are in no way negligent or careless in their duty and liable to pay any compensation as the Board has communicated the result of re-addition of the petitioner within three months from the date of deposit of re-addition/rechecking fees. (ii) The Government of Odisha in the Department of Higher Education has made an advertisement in the daily news paper “The Samaja” dated 26.07.2013 regarding admission in +2 and +3 Classes after publication of result in Supplementary and Instant Examination conducted by B.S.E., Odisha and CHSE, Odisha in all Junior/Degree/Autonomous Colleges for the academic year, 2013-14. Under the eligibility clauses in the 2nd paragraph of the aforesaid advertisement, it is mentioned that applicants who could not apply during the e-admission period due to various reasons, may apply for admission. Therefore, it was contended that if the petitioner so likes, he can take admission in +2 Class for the academic year 2013-14 and question of loss of one academic year and suffering from any mental agony etc. does not arise. In support of his contention, Mr. Dash annexed the advertisement dated 26.7.2013 as Annexure-B to his counter. (iii) Under Section 19 of the Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1979 the Board is competent to constitute Committees. One of such committees is Examination Committee. Regulation 22 speaks about the power of the Examination Committee. does not arise. In support of his contention, Mr. Dash annexed the advertisement dated 26.7.2013 as Annexure-B to his counter. (iii) Under Section 19 of the Orissa Secondary Education Act, 1979 the Board is competent to constitute Committees. One of such committees is Examination Committee. Regulation 22 speaks about the power of the Examination Committee. Under sub-regulation (v) of Regulation 22, the Examination Committee has power to lay down instructions to be issued to candidates, Superintendents of the Examination Centres, Examiners and others. Accordingly, the Examination Committee issued instructions to the examiners in connection with the evaluation of answer books of H.S.C/C.T./ C.P.Ed/ Madhyama Examinations every year including in the year 2013. As per such instructions, the examiners are responsible for error-less valuation of the answer script. It is their responsibility to ensure that the candidates get credit what they actually deserve. Therefore, the Board is not liable to pay any compensation. If this Court comes to a finding that there is any negligence in evaluating the petitioner’s mathematics paper then responsibility may be fixed on the examiners at the valuation centre on account of whose inattentiveness there is improper evaluation in spite of the clear instruction given by the Board for meticulous evaluation and posting of marks. So they are liable to pay the compensation as they are involved in the process of evaluation. (iv) All the persons involved in the process of evaluation of answer books/scripts are not the employees of the Board. The Board does not have any administrative control over those persons as they are the employees of the School and Mass Education Department of the Government of Odisha. Therefore, the Board is not liable to pay the amount of compensation as prayed for by the petitioner. 14. In the context of payment of compensation, the above grounds taken up by opp. party–B.S.E. are irrelevant and not sustainable in law. 15. So far ground No.(i) taken by opposite parties not to pay compensation is concerned, i.e., result declared by the Board is provisional, communication of result of re-addition to a student within reasonable time have nothing to do with payment of compensation. party–B.S.E. are irrelevant and not sustainable in law. 15. So far ground No.(i) taken by opposite parties not to pay compensation is concerned, i.e., result declared by the Board is provisional, communication of result of re-addition to a student within reasonable time have nothing to do with payment of compensation. Even if the result declared by the Board is provisional and the result of the re-addition has been communicated within the reasonable time, if the student’s career is marred and/or he/she suffers from mental agony, shock, harassment and humiliation due to wrong/mistake in declaration of provisional result, he/she has to be compensated suitably. Therefore, the mere fact that the Board intimated the result of re-addition within a reasonable time does not wash away the fact of wrong and negligence committed by the opp. parties in not ensuring award of correct and accurate marks which the petitioner was entitled to. 16. To deal with ground No.(ii) taken by the opposite parties not to pay compensation, I have to consider as to whether in the present case the petitioner has suffered any loss, mental agony and harassment, career set back etc. due to wrong declaration of his result as failed and for awarding 06 marks instead of 89 marks in Mathematics answer script. In this case, petitioner was declared failed as 06 marks were awarded in Mathematics paper. On re-addition it was found that in fact the petitioner secured 89 marks in that subject. Thus, the total mark of 412 originally awarded to the petitioner was enhanced to 495 marks out of 600 marks which comes to 82.5% of marks and such revised mark sheet was communicated to the petitioner on 19.6.2013 by which time the last dates for regular students to apply for higher study online, i.e., 11.6.2013 and Off line 12.6.2013 were over, as per key dates notified by the Higher Education Department under Annexure-4. This fact has not been disputed by OP-BSE. Thus, the petitioner was deprived of making application for higher studies as a regular student because of negligent act of the opp. Parties. 17. At this stage it is relevant to extract here the observation of this Court in the case of Reena Dei (supra) relied upon by the opp. Parties. “…… A candidate who appears at an examination has a right to fair and proper valuation. Fair and accurate valuation is must. Parties. 17. At this stage it is relevant to extract here the observation of this Court in the case of Reena Dei (supra) relied upon by the opp. Parties. “…… A candidate who appears at an examination has a right to fair and proper valuation. Fair and accurate valuation is must. Otherwise not only the students but also the society at large would lose faith on the persons who have undertaken the duty of evaluating the performance of students in the examination. It is high time that the Board should take a stock of the whole situation and block the loopholes in the system which is presently in a real bad shape. In a welfare State education occupies a very high position. Therefore, the Board has a bounden duty to be above suspicion like Caesor’s wife.” 18. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the President, Board of Secondary Education, Orissa & another v. D. Suvankar and another in Appeal (Civil) No.4926 of 2006 (arising out of S.L.P. (C) No.17990 of 2005) decided on 14th November, 2006 observed as follows : “Award of marks by an Examiner is to be fair, and considering the fact that revaluation is not permissible under the Statute, the Examiner has to be careful, cautious and has a duty to ensure that the answers are properly evaluated. No element of chance or luck should be introduced. An examination is a stepping –stone on career advancement of a student. Absence of a provision for revaluation cannot be a shield or the Examiner to arbitrarily evaluate the answer script. That would be against the very concept for which revaluation is impermissible.” Thus, a candidate who appears at an examination has a right to get fair and proper evaluation of his answer scripts. An examination is a stepping-stone on career advancement of a student. In the instant case, admittedly due to negligence and latches on the part of the opposite parties, the petitioner’s career is marred and he suffers from mental agony, shock, harassment and humiliation in the society. 19. Placing reliance on Annexure-B attached to the counter affidavit filed by opp. parties, Mr. In the instant case, admittedly due to negligence and latches on the part of the opposite parties, the petitioner’s career is marred and he suffers from mental agony, shock, harassment and humiliation in the society. 19. Placing reliance on Annexure-B attached to the counter affidavit filed by opp. parties, Mr. Dash submitted that Government of Odisha in the Department of Higher Education made an advertisement in the daily news paper “The Samaja” dated 26.7.2013 Cuttack for admission into +2 and +3 Classes after publication of the results in Supplementary and Instant Examinations conducted by B.S.E., Odisha and C.H.S.E., Odisha in all Junior and Degree/Autonomous Colleges for the academic Session 2013-14 and under the eligibility clause in the 2nd paragraph, it is given that the applicants who could not apply during e-admission period due to various reasons can apply for admission. Therefore, it was argued by Mr. Dash that the petitioner, if he so likes, can take admission in +2 class for the academic session 2013-14 and question of loss of one academic year does not arise. Perusal of Annexure-B reveals that such advertisement has been made for admission to seats lying vacant in +2 and +3 Classes of various Junior Colleges. The eligibility clause in paragraph 2 of the said Advertisement also reveals that the applicants, who have not got any seat during online admission, they are eligible to make application. This itself shows that in the first phase of admission seats were filled up in good Colleges as the students having secured higher marks could be able to take admission in better Colleges. Now, the advertisement under Annexure-B is made to fill up the left out /vacant seats in +2 and +3 classes of various Colleges. Undoubtedly, the petitioner, who has secured 82.5 % marks is deprived of getting a seat in a better College because of negligence on the part of the opp. Parties in wrongly declaring him failed by awarding 06 marks in Mathematics paper in stead of 89 marks. If the petitioner would have got correct mark sheet before expiry of the last date for applying to take admission in +2 and +3 classes as regular student, he could have got a seat in a better College. Parties in wrongly declaring him failed by awarding 06 marks in Mathematics paper in stead of 89 marks. If the petitioner would have got correct mark sheet before expiry of the last date for applying to take admission in +2 and +3 classes as regular student, he could have got a seat in a better College. Now, the petitioner is left with the choice either to lose one year and wait for the next year admission session, i.e., 2014-15 to get a seat in a better College or to take admission this year against the vacant seats available after the first round of admission is over. In either way, petitioner sustains a serious set back in building his academic career. Had the result of the petitioner been declared correctly, he could have been able to take admission in a better College this year where he could have got better facilities of studying and interacting with equally or more talented students. The petitioner drew the attention of this Court to the Advertisement made in daily news paper “The Samaja” under Annexure-5 stated to be dated 07.08.2013 which also reveals that such advertisement was made for admission to +2 and +3 seats remaining vacant after 1st phase of admission was over. This Court while disposing of the earlier writ petition i.e. W.P.(C) No.11556 of 2013 has observed that the petitioner, who is a brilliant student is suffering due to no fault of him and because of the fault of the Board officials, the career of the petitioner is going to be marred. Therefore, the stand taken by Mr. Dash that the petitioner is in no way prejudiced in view of having an opportunity to take admission in any College on the basis of Advertisement made under Annexure-B is not only unfortunate, but also shocking. 20. Ground Nos. (iii) and (iv) taken by opposite parties not to pay compensation to the petitioner are that they are in no way negligent or careless in their duties. If this Court at all directs for payment of compensation, the same may be realized from the persons who are involved in the process of evaluation of answer script. In the additional affidavit dated 14.8.2013 filed by the opp. Parties, it is stated as follows: “In the present case one Jugajyoti Ratha of Gadibrahma, Laximdhara Girls’ High School, Balikuda of District-Jagatsinghpur was the Asst. In the additional affidavit dated 14.8.2013 filed by the opp. Parties, it is stated as follows: “In the present case one Jugajyoti Ratha of Gadibrahma, Laximdhara Girls’ High School, Balikuda of District-Jagatsinghpur was the Asst. Examiner who examined the Mathematics paper of the petitioner, one Jyotshna Kumari Pattnaik of Balikuda High School, Balikuda, Dist. Jagatsinghpur, was the Deputy Chief Examiner, one Krushna Chandra Mohanty of Marichpur, Dist. Jagatsinghpur was the Chief Examiner and one Amiya Kumar Swain of Biju Pattnaik Smruti Bidya Pitha of Patenigaon, Jagatsinghpur was the Scrutinizer in respect of the above Mathematics paper and all of them are negligent in their respective duties on the process of evaluation of the Mathematics paper of the petitioner”. 21. The above statements of the Board amply prove lack of control of the Board on the evaluation process. This is very sad state of affairs. Undisputedly, the petitioner appeared in the H.S.C. Examination, 2013 which was conducted by the opp. party-Board; the result of such candidate was declared in the website of opp. Party-Board; the opp. Party-Board has also issued H.S.C. Examination Certificate and Mark sheet to the petitioner; the Examination Committee is constituted by the Board; the examiners appointed by the Examination Committee are doing the examination work on behalf of and as agents of the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. Therefore, the Board cannot take a stand that it is not responsible for awarding 06 marks in stead of 89 marks in Mathematics paper as the examiners are entrusted with the work of awarding marks to students 22. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of D. Suvankar and another (supra) held as under: “….Ultimately, it is the Board which has to ensure that the correct marks sheet is issued to the candidates since candidates who appear at the High School Certificate are of tender age. If by mistake the Board indicates to the candidates’ incorrect marks, it is bound to have adverse effect on the mind of the candidates of tender age. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the board to ensure that errorless marks sheet is issued to each candidate.” 23. Needless to say that the petitioner-student has a right to prosecute his study with dignity. Therefore, the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha must ensure the education of the students with dignity. Therefore, it is imperative on the part of the board to ensure that errorless marks sheet is issued to each candidate.” 23. Needless to say that the petitioner-student has a right to prosecute his study with dignity. Therefore, the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha must ensure the education of the students with dignity. For the wrong committed by the examiners engaged by the Board through the Examination Committee to examine the answer scripts of the students, it would be appropriate to hold that the case is governed by the legal maxim “respondeat superior” and the Board is liable for the wrong committed by examiners and also the Examination Committee. 24. In Kumari Smt. vs. State of Tamil Nadu and others, AIR 1992 SC 2069 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court while overruling the decision of the Madras High Court observed that the writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India can be invoked by the Writ Court for awarding compensation to a victim, who suffered due to negligence of the State or its functionaries. In that case, a six years’ old child had fallen down in an uncovered sewerage tank. The High Court had refused to entertain the claim of compensation in a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, but the Hon’ble Supreme Court directed the State to pay compensation. 25. For the reasons stated above, I am of the considered view that the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha is liable to pay compensation to the petitioner for the wrong/negligence committed by the examiners in awarding 06 marks instead of 89 marks in Mathematics paper for which the petitioner shall either lose one academic year or shall be deprived of getting a seat in a better College and suffering from mental agony, humiliation and harassment for no fault of him. 26. In the present case, doubt comes to the mind about efficacy of the methods evolved by the Board. The plight of the students and irreparable loss caused to the career of students cannot be lost sight of. No money can compensate the grave injustice suffered by the petitioner because of the patent negligence and carelessness of the examiners appointed by the Examination Committee constituted by the opp. Party-Board. It is not uncommon that in some cases brilliant students commit suicide because of award of abnormally less marks beyond their legitimate expectation. No money can compensate the grave injustice suffered by the petitioner because of the patent negligence and carelessness of the examiners appointed by the Examination Committee constituted by the opp. Party-Board. It is not uncommon that in some cases brilliant students commit suicide because of award of abnormally less marks beyond their legitimate expectation. It is only the grace of God that the petitioner has not taken any such heart-rending step out of frustration. It may be noted that in many cases later on it is found that less marks are awarded due to carelessness of the examiners as on re-addition of the marks such students get their expected marks like the present case. This action of the opp. parties has not only caused a lot of anguish and tension but also mental torture to the petitioner and has resulted in gross violation of human right of the petitioner. Right to life would include expectation of fair-play, caution and care of the examiners appointed by the Examination Committee constituted by the Board. This is a clear case where the petitioner is entitled to get just and fair compensation. It would be worth mentioning that even in the cases relating to vehicular accidents, compensation under the Motor vehicle statute is awarded where the injured-victim’s past educational career was good but because of accident he is incapacitated to pursue his study. In the case at hand, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the career of a meritorious student is at stake. 27. In view of the above, opposite party No.1-Board of Secondary Education, Odisha is directed to pay a compensation of Rs.3,00,000/-(rupees three lakhs) to the petitioner within a period of eight weeks from today, failing which, the amount of compensation shall carry interest @ 9% per annum till payment. I have taken note of various factors like break and interruption of educational career of a meritorious student, his mental agony, shock and humiliation in the society. The authorities shall also take stringent action against the erring officials who are responsible for this impasse. It is open to the Board of Secondary Education to recover the whole or any part of the amount of compensation from the erring officials. The authorities shall also take stringent action against the erring officials who are responsible for this impasse. It is open to the Board of Secondary Education to recover the whole or any part of the amount of compensation from the erring officials. The entire compensation amount shall be kept in fixed deposit in any Nationalized Bank in the name of the petitioner for a period of five years with a condition that the monthly interest of such fixed deposit shall be paid to the petitioner regularly to meet his educational expenses. If there will be any need of money for the purpose of higher study/ education of the petitioner-student, liberty is given to the petitioner to move this Court for premature withdrawal of the fixed deposit. 28. With the aforesaid observations and directions, the writ petition is allowed to the extent indicated above. No costs. Petition Allowed