Research › Search › Judgment

J&K High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 551 (JK)

Tabasum Rizvi v. State

2013-09-16

MUZAFFAR HUSSAIN ATTAR

body2013
1. The petitioner appeared as a private candidate in the Matriculation Examination, which was conducted by respondent-Jammu and Kashmir State Board of School Education, Srinagar (for short Board) in the month of November, 2011. The roll number assigned to the petitioner was 477497. The petitioner, in terms of the orders of the respondent-Board, had to take the matriculation examination at Centre No. 477, Islamia High School. In the result Notification, issued by the respondent-Board, dated 30th March, 2012 against the roll number and name of the petitioner, it was remarked as "Exam Cancl". 2. It is pleaded at para-4 of the writ petition that petitioner initially approached the respondent no. 4 and requested him to declare the result of his daughter. When the request did not evoke any response, he approached the Superintendent of the Examination Centre on 2nd April, 2012, who sent Communication to the Assistant Secretary, J&K (BOSE), Branch Office, Sopore, wherein it is specifically mentioned that in the Result Gazette, the roll number of the petitioner's daughter has been shown to have been disqualified on the ground of having been caught copying. The Superintendent in specific terms has said that no such case was registered in the Centre by the Authorities of the Board or any Supervisory Staff including the Superintendent. 3. It is pleaded at para 5 of the writ petition that because of the cancellation of examination on the ground of having indulged in unfair means, the daughter of the petitioner suffered depression, which would have even led her to commit suicide. It is further pleaded that it is because of timely intervention of the petitioner and other family members, the life of daughter of the petitioner was saved. 4. The petitioner had filed writ petition bearing OWP.no. 438/2012, seeking direction upon the respondents for declaring the result of his daughter. The writ petition was later on withdrawn as the respondents had assured the petitioner that his grievances would be redressed. The respondents, during the pendency of this writ petition have declared the result of daughter of the petitioner on 3rd of April, 2013, wherein it has been stated that the daughter of the petitioner has passed in the examination which she had taken in the year 2011. 5. The respondents, during the pendency of this writ petition have declared the result of daughter of the petitioner on 3rd of April, 2013, wherein it has been stated that the daughter of the petitioner has passed in the examination which she had taken in the year 2011. 5. In the reply affidavit, filed by respondents 3 and 4, it is stated that public notice was issued in a Daily Newspaper in its issue dated 14th March, 2012, and the candidates, who were booked for having allegedly involved in unfair means, were called upon to appear before the Unfair Means Committee on 16th March, 2012. It is further pleaded in the reply affidavit that the petitioner's daughter did not appear in response to the said notification, but submitted a representation on 21 November, 2012. It is also pleaded that on the basis of enquiry conducted, the claim of the petitioner was found to be genuine. It is also pleaded that during the enquiry, it transpired that the Code Officer had inadvertently booked the petitioner's daughter as an unfair means case, which mistake was admitted by the said officer. 6. The petitioner, in the writ petition, besides praying for declaration of result of his daughter, has also prayed for issuance of direction to the respondents to pay suitable compensation to her daughter for having wasted her one educational year. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued in tune with the pleadings of the writ petition. Learned counsel submitted that in the Result Notification, it was shown that the exam. of the candidate was cancelled, whereas in the Notice published in Daily Newspaper dated 14th March, 2012, those candidates were asked to appear before the Unfair Means Committee, whose exams were not cancelled. Learned counsel submitted that this notification would not be applicable to the case of the petitioner's daughter. 8. Learned counsel for the respondent- Board submitted that stand has been taken in the reply affidavit and it has been admitted that inadvertent mistake was committed by Code Officer which resulted in booking petitioner as an unfair means case. Learned counsel submitted that delay in declaring the result of daughter of the petitioner is because she filed representation before the Board Authorities on 21st November, 2012, where after the enquiry was conducted and her result was declared on 3rd April, 2013. Learned counsel submitted that delay in declaring the result of daughter of the petitioner is because she filed representation before the Board Authorities on 21st November, 2012, where after the enquiry was conducted and her result was declared on 3rd April, 2013. Learned counsel submitted that in these circumstances the Authorities of the Board have not committed any mistake. 9. The State Board of School Education is charged with the onerous duty of conducting examinations up to the level of 10+2. In the conduct of examination, the Authorities of the State Board of School Education have to exhibit due concern and any laxity shown, cannot be condoned in all circumstances. In the hands of the Authorities of State Board of School Education rests the future of school going children. In the present times, when the students burn the candle on both ends and keep on working hard to seek an appropriate grade in the examination, losing one year, would materially affect the right to life. In the Result Notification, it was declared that the exam of daughter of the petitioner stands cancelled. The Notification was issued on 30th March, 2012. The Communication dated 2nd April, 2012 was send to Assistant Secretary, J&K (BOSE), Branch Office, Sopore by the Headmaster, Govt. Girls High School Arampora, Sopore, in which, the SSE Examination private Annual, Centre No. 477. It is specifically mentioned therein that no case of unfair means was detected by any Authority in the said School. It was duty of the Assistant Secretary to forward the case to the Higher Authorities. No action has been taken on this Communication. 10. The respondents issued public notice on 14th March, 2012, calling upon those candidates who were booked for unfair means to appear before the Unfair Means Committee on 16th March, 2012. It is not said in the reply affidavit that roll number of daughter of the petitioner was also mentioned in the said public notice. 11. Be that as it may, the Authorities were already in know of the fact and it was their duty to look into the grievances of the petitioner and take remedial steps. It is not said in the reply affidavit that roll number of daughter of the petitioner was also mentioned in the said public notice. 11. Be that as it may, the Authorities were already in know of the fact and it was their duty to look into the grievances of the petitioner and take remedial steps. It is only after representation was filed by the father of the petitioner on 21st November, 2012 before the Authorities of Board that they enquired into the matter and found that the petitioner was not involved in any unfair means case and her result was declared on 3rd of April, 2013. As already stated hereinabove, it is admitted by the respondents that the Code Officer committed the mistake. 12. The respondents, in order to ensure that no student suffers because of the mistake or lapse of any officers of the respondent-Board, should have put a mechanism in place to re-verify the matter at their own level before taking decision of cancelling the result of petitioner. The petitioner has lost one year of her educational career, for which she cannot be adequately compensated. In the race of life she has lagged behind and this would certainly have an adverse effect on her future career. 13. No amount of money can compensate the petitioner. However, the petitioner would require to be paid token compensation. The direction for payment of compensation would also act as deterrent in future and the Authorities of Board would perform their duties in a manner which would not affect the future of any candidate. 14. For the above stated reasons this writ petition alongwith connected I.A.'s is disposed of and respondents 3 and 4 are directed to pay an amount of Rs. 2.00 lacs (two lacs) as compensation to the petitioner. The amount shall be paid within four weeks from the date copy of this order is served. 15. Disposed of in the above terms.