“Ruined Student’s Career”: Allahabad HC Orders Lucknow University To Pay ₹2L Compensation For Wrongfully Withholding 3rd Year Student’s Results
The Allahabad High Court directed Lucknow University to pay ₹ 2 lakh compensation for wrongfully withholding the results of a 3rd year B.Sc. student.
The Court said that the actions of the University were deplorable as its actions had deleterious effects on the future of the candidate.
The Court was hearing a Writ Petition as the Examination Committee indicated that there was no finding that the petitioner had transplanted the answer sheets and was guilty of misconduct.
The bench of Justice Alok Mathur observed, “the Lucknow University is responsible for ruining the career of a student without there being any definite and concrete finding of misconduct in the alleged transplantation of answer sheets….the petition is allowed at the cost of rupees two lakhs, which shall be paid by the respondent University to the petitioner…”
Advocate Avinash Chandra appeared for the Appellant and C.S.C. Savitra Vardhan Singh appeared for the Respondent.
Brief Facts-
The petitioner, a B.Sc. 3rd-year student at Lucknow University appeared for exams in 2009. Although the results were declared, her results were withheld due to the alleged manipulation of answer sheets in six subjects. Despite multiple attempts, the university neither scored her answer sheets nor issued any misconduct orders. It wasn't until a show cause notice that the petitioner was informed of the allegations. She denied the allegations in her reply but the university failed to communicate any decision following her response.
The Court noted that the University failed to communicate the decision of the examination committee that permitted the petitioner to appear in the examination and observed, “Merely passing of the order is not sufficient to hold a person guilty during an inquiry but it is equally essential and mandatory that such an order should in fact be communicated to the delinquent at the conclusion of the enquiry proceedings.”
“Non-communication of the order renders the same non-est and non-existing and no action can be taken in furtherance of the order which has not been communicated to the party concerned.”, the Court added.
The Court further mentioned the decision of the Supreme Court in Sethi Auto Service Station vs. DDA reported in (2009) 1 SCC 180 where the Supreme Court after referring to the case of Bachhittar Singh vs. State of Punjab reported in AIR 1963 SC 395 observed, “Needless to add that internal notings are not meant for outside exposure. Notings in the file culminate into an executable order, affecting the rights of the parties, only when it reaches the final decision-making authority in the department, gets his approval and the final order is communicated to the person concerned.”
The Court further said that the matter directly pertains to the educational future of the student, who was deprived of sitting in the examinations of the B.Sc. 3rd year and even pursuing further education, to which the candidate may have been entitled.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Petition.
Cause Title: Priyanka Dubey v. State of U.P. (Neutral Citation: 2024:AHC-LKO:46922)
Appearance:
Appellant: Adv. Avinash Chandra, Adv. Sukumar Srivastava
Respondent: C.S.C. Savitra Vardhan Singh