Board Must Pay Compensation For Negligently Marking Student 'Fail' Where She Actually Scored 77 Marks: Patna High Court
The Patna High Court ruled that the Board acted irresponsibly and deplorably when it published the results of Petitioner no. 2, who was declared 'fail' in her Compulsory Sanskrit Exam, even though she had scored 77 marks. The Court found that the Board's actions caused mental agony and humiliation to Petitioner no. 2, and ordered the Respondents to pay a sum of Rs. 2 Lakh as compensation.
The Bench of Justice Rajeev Ranjan Prasad noted, “Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned counsel for the Board as also the State, this Court finds no difficulty in coming to a conclusion that the action of the Board and its officials/ staffs whosoever is there, in recording an incorrect/wrong marks in the result of the petitioner and showing her ‘Fail’ is a totally irresponsible kind of act which has huge adverse consequence upon the career and future prospect of petitioner no. 2. This Court further finds that immediately after the result was published, the petitioner no. 2 had applied for a scrutiny with requisite fee but that was not attended to in time and it took about one year eight months to the Board in taking corrective measures”.
Advocate Indira Kumari appeared for Petitioner, Advocate Hitesh Suman appeared for the State and Advocate Ajay Kumar appeared for the Board.
In this case, Petitioner no. 2 was marked “fail” in her Compulsory Sanskrit Exam in her SSE and so, she filed an application under Right to Information Act. After one and a half years, the board notified Petitioner no. 2 that she had scored ‘77’ in her Compulsory Sanskrit Exam. Petitioner no. 2 contended that her future prospects and career were also ruined and the Board has committed a wrong by unnecessarily delaying her result.
The Court condemned the actions of the Board and held that the recording of wrong marks in the result of petitioner no. 2 was wrong and irresponsible. Additionally, the Board did not take corrective measures within a reasonable time which cause mental agony and humiliation to Petitioner no. 2. “During this period, the petitioner has lost her two academic years and remained suffering from mental agony and humiliation. The act of the Board and its authorities are highly deplorable and are required to be condemned”, the Court asserted.
Additionally, the Court placed reliance on the case Saurabh Kumar v The State of Bihar and Ors. (CWJC No. 6173 of 2018) and directed the Board to pay Rs. 2 Lakh as compensation as well as Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation. The Court observed, “In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, considering the fact that the petitioner no. 2 being a girl student who had in fact passed her matriculation examination in 1st division but because of the irresponsible act of the Board and its officials, she has suffered in her life and has lost her valuable time and studies which cannot be otherwise compensated, this Court directs the Board to pay a sum of Rs.2 lakhs to the petitioner no. 2 as compensation and Rs. 25,000/- as cost of litigation”.
Accordingly, the Court allowed the Writ Petition.
Cause Title: Manoj Kumar v The State of Bihar
