ORDER 1. The petitioner, a student has invoked the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. The grievance of the petitioner is that she appeared in the High School Certificate Examination (10+2) held in the year 2010. In the main examination (Annexure P-1), she was given 14 marks in Science (theory). The aforesaid marks given were less than the performance and expectation of the petitioner. Thus, the petitioner preferred an application for re-totaling. Since re-totaling took time, she appeared in the supplementary examination in the subject of Science. In the result of supplementary examination, the petitioner secured 40 marks in the Science subject. Thereafter, the petitioner received copy of the Science subject of the main examination (Annexure P-5). By placing reliance on this copy, it is contended that the petitioner in fact secured 54 marks in the main examination in the subject of Science but she was erroneously given only 14 marks. On the strength of aforesaid, it is contended that the petitioner be given compensation. Reliance is placed on the order passed by this Court in W.P.No. 7035/2012 (Ku. Pooja Agrawal v. Board of Secondary Education, MP) (Annexure P-7) [ 2012(I) MPWN 122 ]. 2. Shri Shyam Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that because of the negligence of the respondent-Board, the petitioner had to appear in the supplementary examination and, therefore, exemplary cost/compensation be provided to the petitioner. 3. Per contra, Mrs. Patankar for the Board submits that no prejudice is caused to the petitioner and in absence of showing suffering or prejudice, no interference is warranted. She relied on certain paragraphs of the return. 4. The mark sheet (Annexure P-1) of main exam shows that it was issued on 29.6.2010. The supplementary examination's result was declared on 9.8.2010. Thus, within a short span of time the result of supplementary examination was declared. The petitioner has contended that because of improper totaling of marks the petitioner has suffered mentally and her valuable months/year have been lapsed in preparation of supplementary examination (ground of W.P.6(b). The petitioner has made a bald averment. Once result of supplementary examination is declared in August, 2010, it is not established as to how petitioner suffered an year's loss. The petitioner has not established that she suffered in terms of getting admission in further studies in the same academic session. The petitioner has made a bald averment. Once result of supplementary examination is declared in August, 2010, it is not established as to how petitioner suffered an year's loss. The petitioner has not established that she suffered in terms of getting admission in further studies in the same academic session. In other words, the prejudice and the nature of suffering is not established by the petitioner. 5. No doubt, in Pooja Agrawal (supra), this Court has granted compensation to the tune of Rs.75,000/-. However, in the said case, the petitioner was given 10 marks out of 100 and on revaluation she secured 100/100 for mathematics. She approached the Court in quite promptitude and established the prejudice. In this factual backdrop, the Court granted exemplary compensation to the petitioner therein. In the present case, the petitioner has approached the Court after almost three years. Nothing has been pointed out as to how petitioner has suffered. The basic question is whether for every infraction of public duty by public officer the respondents are bound to give compensation. This point is no more res-integra. 6. In (2002) 7 SCC 478 (Rabindra Noth Ghosal v. University of Calcutta and others), the Apex Court was examining the validity of a Division Bench judgment of Kolkatta High Court. The petitioner Rabindranath appeared in the examination but his result was not declared along with the result of other students. He requested the authorities to declare the result. Result was belatedly declared. He filed a petition before the Single Bench of the High Court. The Single Bench allowed the petition by commanding the University to pay Rs.60,000/- as monetary compensation and damages with further action to take appropriate steps against the negligent officials. The Division Bench set aside the said order, which was tested in (2002) 7 SCC 478. The apex Court considered the case of Nilabati Behera Vs. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 . It is opined that it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the Court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. State of Orissa, (1993) 2 SCC 746 . It is opined that it would not be correct to assume that every minor infraction of public duty by every public officer would commend the Court to grant compensation in a petition under Articles 226 and 32 by applying the principle of public law proceeding. Before exemplary damages can be awarded, it must be shown that some fundamental right under Article 21 has been infringed by arbitrary or capricious action on the part of the public functionaries and that the sufferer was a helpless victim of that act. (para 9). 7. The Supreme Court further held that the High Court rightly held that in the present case it was not shown what problem the appellant faced and to what extent he suffered prejudice. It was not established that because of non-disclosure of results, the appellant was prevented from undertaking further studies. In the present case also the petitioner has not established the aforesaid aspect. Thus, no damages can be provided to the petitioner in the present case. The present petitioner also filed this petition after three years. 8. Before parting with the matter, this Court would like to observe that while dealing with the young students like the petitioner, the Board should be more careful because such mistake may spoil the career prospects of the students. No one knows better than the Board that in every year a few students taking its examination take their lives on getting unexpected results. The Board must take immediate steps for sensitizing all concerned so that a foolproof system may be brought into operation for obviating undesirable situations like the present one. It must take deterrent action against any person found guilty of dereliction of duty. Similar view is taken by Kolkatta High Court in the case reported in 2007(3) SLR 310 (Ketaki Dewasi v. State of West Bengal and others). It is expected that the respondents will take appropriate steps in accordance with law against the person who is responsible for improper grant of marks to the petitioner as per Annexure P-5, the answer sheet provided to the petitioner under the RTI Act, 2005. 9. As analyzed above, the petitioner is not entitled for compensation in the facts and circumstances of the case. Petition is disposed of. No cost.