JUDGMENT : (Prayer: Writ Petition is filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondents 1 to 3 and 5 to 6 to take action on the report of the Additional District Magistrate, Pondicherry dated Nil on the causes leading to the suicide of S.Irwin Pyari Abivarma, the first year student of B.Tech (in Pondicherry Engineering College, Pondicherry) and son of the Petitioner, and pay compensation of such amount as may be fixed by this Hon'ble Court to the Petitioner and also to Register a case against the 4th Respondent and prosecute him under Criminal Law.) 1. This Writ Petition is filed for a Writ of Mandamus to take action on the Report of the Additional District Magistrate, Pondicherry, on the causes leading to the suicide of S.Irwin Pyari Abivarma, son of the Petitioner, register a case against the 4th Respondent and prosecute him. 2. The case of the Petitioner is that her son, Irwin Pyari Abivarma, was a student in the Third Respondent College and that he was a very studious person and fared quite well in mathematics at the High School and Higher Secondary School level. In fact, he scored 93.5% in maths in the Matriculation Examination and 99.5% in the Higher Secondary Examination. The Petitioner further states that her son obtained admission in the Third Respondent College through the Central Competitive Examination conducted by the CENTAC in the year 2002 and performed well in the internal examination scoring 22/25 in mathematics. She further submits that her son appeared for the second semester examination conducted by the Pondicherry University in the month of May 2003 and the results thereof were published in July 2003. As per results published on the Internet, he scored 20/75 in the written examination and 20/25 in the internal examination in Mathematics-II thereby failing in the subject. 3. The Petitioner further submits that her son was extremely upset by the results notified by the University and committed suicide on the night of 10.07.2003 leaving a suicide note addressed to the Petitioner and his friends stating that he could not bear the results as he expected 90+ marks in mathematics. 3. The Petitioner further submits that her son was extremely upset by the results notified by the University and committed suicide on the night of 10.07.2003 leaving a suicide note addressed to the Petitioner and his friends stating that he could not bear the results as he expected 90+ marks in mathematics. Thereafter, the Petitioner filed a representation dated 16.07.2003 to the Government of Pondicherry seeking redress and also filed a complaint on 17.07.2003 before the Fifth Respondent so as to register a case for investigation into the death of her son and the punishment of those responsible for it. 4. The Petitioner further submits that the Collector-cum-District Magistrate, Pondicherry, by Order dated 23.07.2003, appointed Mr.G.Ragesh Chandra, Additional District Magistrate, Pondicherry, to conduct an enquiry into the incidents leading to the suicide of her son and to submit a report thereon within 15 days. It is further submitted that the Mathematics-II paper of the Petitioner's son was revalued twice by the Professor of Mathematics of the Indian Institute of Technology in Chennai and the Professor of Mathematics of Pondicherry University. Upon such revaluation, the marks awarded to the Petitioner's son was 61/75 in the first revaluation as per the report of the Additional District Magistrate. It is further submitted that the Additional District Magistrate concluded, in no uncertain terms, that the Fourth Respondent was reckless and careless in evaluating the paper submitted by the Petitioner's son. 5. The case of the Second Respondent, in its counter affidavit, is that the prayer for compensation is not maintainable as against the University. It is further stated that the University has a system of revaluation and that the Petitioner's son could have applied for revaluation. It is further stated that the Fourth Respondent was blacklisted after this incident from the panel of examiners and has not been offered any valuation work in the University. The Second Respondent further stated that there was no irregularity in the appointment of the Fourth Respondent as an examiner because he was duly qualified. 6. The case of the Third Respondent, in its counter affidavit, is that it has co-operated fully in the enquiry by providing required documents/records. It is further stated that the Third Respondent is an Educational Institution and, therefore, cannot take any action on the findings of the Enquiry Committee appointed by the Government. 6. The case of the Third Respondent, in its counter affidavit, is that it has co-operated fully in the enquiry by providing required documents/records. It is further stated that the Third Respondent is an Educational Institution and, therefore, cannot take any action on the findings of the Enquiry Committee appointed by the Government. On this basis, the Third Respondent requests that it may be deleted from the array of parties. 7. The case of the Fourth Respondent is that he is duly qualified and had no adverse remarks or complaints in his career. He further states that he had to evaluate 50 answer sheets per day totalling to 250 in three days and that he was not provided guidance or instructions for evaluation and that no written key answers were given. He further states that the revaluation may have been done in a biased manner because of the public glare in which it was done. He further states that the enquiry report is erroneous. Therefore, he submits that the Writ Petition is not maintainable and is liable to be dismissed. 8. At the hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner stated that the Petitioner is not interested in monetary compensation. He further submitted that if compensation is ordered to be paid, it should be used for establishing a counselling centre so as to avoid such incidents in the future. 9. In response, the learned counsel for the Second Respondent submitted that the University had set up counselling centres to counsel students in crisis. It was further submitted that revaluation of answer papers was provided for even at the time of this incident and that more robust measures have been put in place thereafter. In this regard, the learned counsel for the University handed over a letter dated 03.04.2019 from the legal cell of the University enclosing documents pertaining to the University Counselling Centre, which was inaugurated in October 2015 and formally established in February 2016. He also referred to the enclosures to the said letter which indicate that seminars and other programmes with regard to mental health were conducted on a regular basis under the auspices of the Counselling Centre. 10. The learned counsel for the Third Respondent stated that one of the teachers was functioning as the counsellor and that this practice continues as of date. 11. 10. The learned counsel for the Third Respondent stated that one of the teachers was functioning as the counsellor and that this practice continues as of date. 11. The learned counsel for the Fourth Respondent submitted that the Fourth Respondent was blacklisted after the incident and had, therefore, been duly punished. As regards the criminal prosecution, he stated that this Court had quashed the Criminal Proceedings against the Fourth Respondent. 12. The affidavit, counter affidavits, documents on record and oral submissions of all concerned were duly considered. 13. In this case, it is evident from the Enquiry Report, especially pages 60 and 61 thereof, that the Fourth Respondent was careless in carrying out the evaluation of the mathematics paper. It is also clear that this was at least one of the triggers for the tragic death of the Petitioner's son. As set out above, the learned counsel for the Petitioner, on instructions, submitted that the Petitioner is not interested in monetary compensation but would like to ensure that tragic incidents of this nature do not recur. 14. Keeping the above submission in mind, I requested the learned counsel for the University and the College to provide an update as to the measures taken by both to ensure robust evaluation practices and to provide psychological support to students in need. From the documents filed by the learned counsel for the University, it is clear that the University does, indeed, have a counselling centre which is functional. However, in a crisis situation, it is not sufficient that the University has a psychological counselling centre. It is extremely important that each College, which is affiliated to the University, should have a counselling centre on its campus. Further, it is the responsibility of the University to ensure that this is done as a precondition for continued recognition and affiliation. Moreover, as regards evaluation, it is necessary that the University should have a system of assessing the performance of examiners so as to take corrective action to eliminate those who undertake evaluation in an incompetent, careless or reckless manner. 15. Moreover, as regards evaluation, it is necessary that the University should have a system of assessing the performance of examiners so as to take corrective action to eliminate those who undertake evaluation in an incompetent, careless or reckless manner. 15. Accordingly, this Writ Petition is disposed of by issuing the following directions in the fervent hope that such tragic incidents are averted in future and by recording profound appreciation to the Petitioner and her family for the enormous grace that was displayed in trying circumstances, including by relinquishing the claim for monetary compensation: (a) the Third Respondent College shall establish a fully functional psychological counselling centre with a qualified psychologist at the helm. It is suggested that this counselling centre should be named the Abhiverma Counselling Centre in memory of its former student. (b) Similarly, the Second Respondent shall ensure that all Colleges that are affiliated to it have fully functional psychological counselling centres with a qualified psychologist at the helm. If a College does not have a qualified psychologist in the counselling Centre, at any point of time, the University shall ensure that it deputes a qualified psychologist to the College concerned at short notice or make immediate arrangements to provide counselling to the student concerned at the University Counselling Centre. (c) the Second Respondent shall also ensure that it evolves a method for assessing examiners on the basis of performance, including by comparing the results of evaluation by such examiners with the revaluation results, and take steps to eliminate substandard examiners on a continual and ongoing basis. (d) the Fourth Respondent shall pay costs of Rs.20000/- to the Mediation Centre attached to this Court within two weeks.