Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2021 DIGILAW 26 (UTT)

MASTER PULKIT SHUKLA v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

2021-01-11

SHARAD KUMAR SHARMA

body2021
JUDGMENT The petitioner had been a student, who has taken his high-school examination of the year 2020, which was conducted by respondent No. 2. The petitioner had appeared in the examination; from an Institution called as Khim Ram Arya Govt. Inter College, Paharpani, Nainital, and he took his High School examination with Roll No. 20111390. 2. The result of the High School examination for the year 2020, was declared and consequently, after the declaration of the result on 29.07.2020, it was found that the petitioner had been awarded lesser marks in the Science subject, and as per the pleadings raised in the writ petition, it was total 29 marks, as against science subject, which was shown that the petitioner has obtained in the science paper, which he otherwise expected that according to his performance in the examination, he ought to have been provided with 54 marks. Consequently, he submitted that mark sheet which was issued to him issued on 29.07.2020, upon the declaration of the result was not reflecting the correct marks of the petitioner as per his attempted orders, and the said fact stood fortified by the petitioner when he obtained the answer sheet from the respondent and then only he could get the knowledge of the wrongful determination and computation of the marks made by the respondent. Hence the present writ petition with the following prayers:- “I. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent No. 2 to consider the representation and recheck/re-evaluate the answer sheet of the science subject of high school examination-2020 conducted by the Board of School Education, Uttarakhand by an expert of the said subject within a time frame. II. Issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus for calling of the records from the respondent. III. Pass any other further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost to the petitioner." 3. The coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 06.01.2021, called for the respondent to complete the instructions from the office of respondent No. 2. III. Pass any other further order or direction which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. IV. Award cost to the petitioner." 3. The coordinate Bench of this Court, by an order dated 06.01.2021, called for the respondent to complete the instructions from the office of respondent No. 2. On the instruction which was received from the office of respondent No. 2, which has been placed before this Court, which was a communication made on 08.01.2021, by way of a letter No. 32/2020-21, wherein the Secretary, Uttarakhand School Education Board, had observed that the petitioner would be securing 20 marks extra in the science subject than what was actually shown in his mark sheet and consequently, the total determination of marks obtained by him would be 69 marks. 4. Though the grievance of the petitioner now stands redressed in pursuance of the said communication, but writ Courts, since being a constitutional Courts sitting in an equitable jurisdiction, the respondent authority cannot be permitted to act with slackness and particularly when it relates to career of a student, who is doing his studies, which may have a possibility of leading the students to have a recourse to socially unpleasant acts. 5. An irresponsible manner of assignment of marks can often lead to an irretrievable situation, leading to the students committing untoward acts of even committing suicides. Having considered the correspondence dated 08.01.2021, I am of the view that it would amount that the respondent was irresponsible and have acted with absolute irresponsibility in computation of marks and this correspondence itself will amount to be an admission of the fact. 6. Hence, while disposing of this writ petition, holding thereof that respondent to correct the high-school mark sheet of the petitioner by assigned him the correct marks as depicted in the correspondence dated 08.01.2021. But on account of irresponsible manner in which the office of respondent No. 2; has discharged his responsibility in evaluating the answer sheet of the students by assigning lesser marks than marks actually obtained, they are imposed with the cost of Rs. 50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner, for the both mental, physical and social harassment, caused to him and his family. 50,000/- to be paid to the petitioner, for the both mental, physical and social harassment, caused to him and his family. In case, if the amount is not paid within a period of one month from today, the Collector, Nainital would recover the said amount by way of an arrear of land revenue. 7. Subject to the aforesaid observations, the writ petition stands disposed of.