JUDGMENT : B.R. SARANGI, J. 1. The petitioner has filed this petition seeking to quash Annexure-5, whereby he has been declared failed in Distance Education Programme (C.T.) Examination, 2012 conducted by the Board of Secondary Education, Odisha. 2. Mr. R.K. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner appeared at the Distance Education Programme (C.T.) Examination, 2011 conducted by opposite party No.1 which was held in the Month of August, 2011 in D.I.E.T. Paralakhemundi, Gajapati. The result of the said examination was published on 7.7.2012 in which he was declared failed in four subjects. The opposite party No.2 issued instruction in Annexure-2 to all the Head of the Institutions for D.E.P. (C.T.) Examination, 2012, Ex-Regular clause 5(a) whereof clearly indicated that if a candidate has failed in one or more theory papers, but has passed in Practical papers securing thereby 545 marks (both in theory and practical papers) and more in aggregate shall be allowed to clear the theory papers as a compartmental candidate in maximum three consecutive examinations immediately following the one in which he/she has failed. As it appears, the petitioner has secured 589 marks and he has exceeded the required marks of 545 and therefore, he is otherwise eligible to appear at the compartmental examination conducted by the Board. Accordingly, he filled up the form as an Ex-regular compartmental candidate in respect of four subjects, i.e. Paper-III, Paper-IV, Paper-VI and Paper-IX, which was accepted by opposite party No.3 and necessary admit card was been issued in favour of the petitioner permitting him to appear at the examination having Roll No. EDEO1225 in four subjects as compartmental candidate, pursuant to which the petitioner appeared at the examination, but subsequently, when the result was published in Annexure-5, it has been indicated that he has failed though he has secured pass marks in all these four subjects. Mr. Sahoo, learned counsel for the petitioner strenuously urged that once the authorities allowed the petitioner to appear at the examination and issued a certificate in his favour in Annexure-3 indicating that he is eligible to appear at the compartmental examination in the subjects he applied for, he could not have been declared failed for no reasons. More so, he is eligible in view of the provisions contained in Clause 5 of Annexure-2, the instruction issued to the heads of the Institutions for Distance Education Programme (C.T.) Examination, 2012. More so, he is eligible in view of the provisions contained in Clause 5 of Annexure-2, the instruction issued to the heads of the Institutions for Distance Education Programme (C.T.) Examination, 2012. He further submits that once the petitioner has been permitted and has passed in theory subjects, the authorities are estopped to declare the petitioner failed as he has not secured 40% marks in all the subjects. 3. The Board of Secondary Education has filed counter affidavit. In Paragraph-4 thereof, it reads as follows:- "That the opposite parties humbly beg to submit that the petitioner had appeared DEP (CT) Examination, 2011 bearing Roll No.08EDE053 and got the marks as follows:- Theory Total 389 Practical Total 200 Grand Total 589 Thereafter, he filled up forms for appearing at DEP (CT) Examination, 2012 as compartmental candidate in ELP, CTM, CEE & CES subjects. The petitioner had secured 545 marks in aggregate, but he had not secured 40% marks in theory and 50% marks in practical papers). The total mark in theory paper is 1050 (40% of 1050 is 420). The petitioner has secured 389 marks in theory papers although he has secured more than 50% marks in practical paper, 545 marks in aggregate is required for a candidate to make him eligible to pass the examination in third division. A candidate securing a pass mark requiring for third division, can only be eligible to appear compartmentally in the next examination in case he fails in one or more theory papers. In this regard an instruction was issued by the Govt. in the Department of School & Mass Education to all concerned vide letter No.10658/SME dated 16.05.2006. The said provision is also available under Regulation 10 and 11 of Chapter-X D(A) of the Board's Regulation. As the mark secured by the petitioner does not satisfy the provision of Board's regulation as well as aforesaid instruction of the Government the petitioner was marked ABS, i.e. absent in all other subjects and his result was declared as Fail." 4. Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that in view of the contentions raised in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, no illegality has been committed by the authorities in declaring the petitioner failed in-the examination. 5. Mr. B. Dash, learned counsel appearing for the Board submits that in view of the contentions raised in paragraph-4 of the counter affidavit, no illegality has been committed by the authorities in declaring the petitioner failed in-the examination. 5. Considering the contentions raised by the parties and on perusing the records this Court finds that it is the admitted case that the petitioner has failed in Distance Education Programme (C.T.) Examination, 2011 for which he has been allowed to fill up the forms in four subjects and as such, in view of the provisions contained in Clause 5 of the instructions to the Head of the Institution for DEP (CT) Examination, 2012 under Annexure-2, he satisfies the conditions, consequence thereof, the petitioner was permitted to appear at the examination, but when his result was published, he has been declared failed as he has not appeared in all the subjects. The Board of Secondary Education has a statutory regulation, Chapter XD (A) states about the regulations for conduct of examination for Distance Education Programme (Equivalent to CT Course) for untrained elementary school teachers of the State. Clause 10 of the said Regulation reads as follows:- "10. The pass mark in each theory paper (I to XI) shall be 40% and in each component of practical paper (XII) shall be 50% (i.e. 50 marks for mono-grade teaching and 50 marks for multigrade teaching and 25 marks for records). At the final qualifying examination award of division shall be considered out of 1300 marks. In award of division marks obtained by a candidate both in theory and practical papers shall be taken into consideration. Division shall be awarded as per the following:- 780 marks and above First Division 650 to 799 marks Second Division 545 to 649 marks Third Division. *545 marks in aggregate (i.e. 40% marks in theory and 50% marks in practical papers." This Regulation clearly specifies that the minimum mark to declare a candidate pass is 545 i.e. 40% of marks in theory and 50% marks in practical papers. The petitioner having not satisfied the required percentage of marks as per the Regulation, he has been declared failed as per the mark-sheet in Annexure-5. The petitioner having not satisfied the required percentage of marks as per the Regulation, he has been declared failed as per the mark-sheet in Annexure-5. The contention raised that though he has been permitted to appear at the examination in terms of Clause-5 of the Instruction to the Head of the Institutions for DEP (CT) Examination, 2012 under Annexure-2 that itself is not in consonance with the Regulation, which is governing the field. 6. In C.L. Verma vs. State of M.P. and another, AIR 1990 SC 463 , the apex Court held that an administrative instruction cannot compete with a statutory rule and if there be contrary provision in the rule, the administrative instructions must give way and the rule shall prevail. In other words, the executive instruction cannot supersede the statutory regulations governing the field. 7. C.K. Thakker in Administrative Law by (Second Edition), while analyzing with the case in J.R. Raghupathy etc. vs. State of A.P. AIR 1988 SC 1681 observed as follows:- "The guidelines were merely in the nature of administrative instructions issued by the State Government to the Collectors, which had no statutory force. Therefore, even if there was breach of the guidelines, the High Court would not have issued a writ in the nature of mandamus to enforce the guidelines which were nothing more than administrative instructions not having any statutory force, which did not give rise to any legal right in favour of the writ petitioners." This view has also been reiterated in the Joint Chief Controller of Imports and Exports, Madras vs. M/s. Aminchand Mutha etc. AIR 1966 SC 478 , Andhra Industrial Works vs. Chief Controller of Imports and others, AIR 1974 SC 1539 , V.I. Khanzode and others vs. Reserve Bank of India and another, (1982) 2 SCC 7 , Chief Commercial Manager, South Central Railway, Secunderabad and others vs. G. Ratnam and others, AIR 2007 SC 2976 . 8. The regulation having prescribed a specific mode, subsequent issuance of administrative instruction contrary to the Regulation cannot hold good in the field. In that view of the matter, declaring the petitioner as failed in terms of Regulation 10 cannot be interfered with. 9. The petitioner has appeared at the examination with bona fide belief that he has been permitted by the authorities to appear at the examination in terms of the administrative instruction issued in Annexure-2. In that view of the matter, declaring the petitioner as failed in terms of Regulation 10 cannot be interfered with. 9. The petitioner has appeared at the examination with bona fide belief that he has been permitted by the authorities to appear at the examination in terms of the administrative instruction issued in Annexure-2. The mistake has been committed by the authorities by permitting the petitioner to appear in four subjects instead of directing him to appear in all subjects in consonance with the Regulation. Therefore, if the authorities have committed illegalities and irregularities by not pointing out the mistake committed and allowed the petitioner to appear at the examination and ultimately declared him as failed, amounts to negligence on the part of the authorities. 10. In Poonam Verma vs. Ashwin Patel, (1996) 4 SCC 332 , negligence has been defined as follows:- "Negligence as a tort is the breach of the duty caused by omission to do something which a reasonable man would do, or doing something which a prudent and reasonable man would not do. The definition involves the following constituents:- (1) A legal duty to exercise due care. (2) Breach of the duty. (3) Consequential damages. 11. In Municipal Corporation of Greater Bombay vs. Laxman Iyer, (2003) 8 SCC 731 , the apex Court held as follows:- "Negligence is omission of duty caused either by an omission to do something which a reasonable man guided upon those considerations, who ordinarily by reason of conduct of human affairs would do nor be obliged to, or by doing something which a prudent or reasonable man would not do. Negligence does not always mean absolute carelessness, but want of such a degree of care as is required in particular circumstances. Negligence is failure to observe, for the protection of the interests of another person, the degree of care, precaution and vigilance which the circumstances justly demand, whereby such other person suffers injury. The idea of negligence and duty are strictly correlative. Negligence means either subjectively a careless state of mind or objectively careless conduct. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. No absolute standard can be fixed and no mathematically exact formula can be laid down by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. Negligence means either subjectively a careless state of mind or objectively careless conduct. Negligence is not an absolute term, but is a relative one; it is rather a comparative term. No absolute standard can be fixed and no mathematically exact formula can be laid down by which negligence or lack of it can be infallibly measured in a given case. What constitutes negligence varies under different conditions and in determining whether negligence exists in a particular case, or whether a mere act or course of conduct amounts to negligence, all the attending and surrounding facts and circumstances have to be taken into account. To determine whether an act would be or would not be negligent, it is relevant to determine if any reasonable man would foresee that the act would cause damage or not. The omission to do what the law obligates or even the failure to do anything in a manner, mode or method envisaged by law would equally and per se constitute negligence on the part of such person. If the answer is in the affirmative, it is negligent act." 12. In Jacob Mathew vs. State of Punjab, 2005 (6) SCC 1 the apex Court has defined the word negligence to mean:- "The jurisprudential concept of negligence defies any precise definition. In current forensic speech, negligence has three meanings. They are: (i) a state of mind, in which it is opposed to intention; (ii) careless conduct; and (iii) the breach of a duty to take care that is imposed by either common or statute law. All three meanings are applicable in different circumstances but anyone of them does not necessarily exclude the other meanings." 13. In Naresh Giri vs. State of M.P. (2008) 4 SCC 791 , the apex Court has held as follows:- "Negligence is conduct which falls below the standard established for the protection of others against unreasonable risk of harm, this standard of conduct is ordinarily measured by what the reasonable man of ordinary prudence would do under the circumstances. In order to objectify the law's abstractions like care, reasonableness or foreseeability the man of ordinary prudence was invented as a model of the standard of conduct to which all men are required to perform." 14. In order to objectify the law's abstractions like care, reasonableness or foreseeability the man of ordinary prudence was invented as a model of the standard of conduct to which all men are required to perform." 14. In Jay Laxmi Salt Works Pvt. Ltd. vs. State of Gujarat, (1994) 4 SCC 1 , the apex Court held as follows:- "Negligence in performance of duty is only a step to determine if action of Government resulting in loss or injury to common man should not go uncompensated." 15. In Column 13 of the application under Annexure-3, the petitioner applied to appear at the examination compartmentally in four subjects mentioned therein and the Head of the Institution certified that the petitioner is eligible to appear compartmentally in the subjects applied for. In the admit card in Annexure-4, even though the petitioner was permitted to appear compartmentally in the four subjects typed out therein, but subsequently the rest of the subjects have been inserted by hand and at the eleventh 'hour while issuing admit card, the petitioner was directed to appear in all the papers, which is not justified, rather it adds feather to the negligence caused by the authorities. 16. In view of the law laid down by the apex Court and keeping in view the conduct of the Board authorities, this Court holds that the authorities are grossly negligent in scrutinizing the application form filed by the petitioner and putting him into harassment. For such negligent conduct, this Court is of the view that the petitioner is entitled to compensation. 17. In R.C. Cooper vs. Union of India, AIR 1970 SC 564 , while defining the word compensation, the apex Court has held as follows:- "In its dictionary meaning compensation means anything given to make things equal in value; anything given as an equivalent, to make amends for loss or damage. 18. In Rathi Menon vs. Union of India, AIR 2001 SC 1333 , the apex Court has held as follows:- "Though the word compensation is not defined in the Act or in the rules it is the giving of an equivalent or substitute of equivalent value. It means when you pay the compensation in terms of money, it must represent, on the date of ordering such payment, the equivalent value." 19. It means when you pay the compensation in terms of money, it must represent, on the date of ordering such payment, the equivalent value." 19. In Ghaziabad Development Authority vs. Balbir Singh, AIR 2004 SC 2141 , the apex Court has held as follows:- "The word compensation is of a very wide connotation. It may constitute actual loss or expected loss and may extend to compensation for physical, mental or even emotional suffering, insult or injury or loss." 20. In the fitness of things, due to the negligence and callous attitude of the authorities of the Board, since the career of the petitioner has been seriously affected, this Court feels that the opposite party Board should pay a compensation of Rs. 20,000/- (twenty thousand) and the said amount shall be recovered from the salary of the persons responsible for such lapses. To add to it, if the petitioner desires to appear in all the subjects, the Board authorities will consider his case and give him opportunity, so that his career may not be jeoparadised. 21. With the aforesaid observation and direction, the writ petition is disposed of. Petition disposed of.