Judgment:
1 W.P.No.156/2013 27/06/2013 Shri A.L.Gupta, learned counsel for the petitioner.
Shri P.K.Kaurav, learned counsel for the respondent.
Alleging wrong being committed by the respondent M.P.Board of Secondary Education in drawing the Mark sheet of High School Certificate Examination (10+2) 2012 by depicting 25 marks in Sanskrit (General) instead of 75 marks, the petitioner has filed the petition seeking direction to the respondent to issue correct Make sheet with “Distinction”.
in relevant subject.
Petitioner having appeared in the High School Certificate Examination 2012 was issued a Mark Sheet on 04.06.2012 wherein he scored 76, 75, 92, 77 and 55 marks out of 100 in Hindi (Special).English (General).Mathematics, Science and Social Science respectively.
However, in Sanskrit (General) the petitioner was shown having scored 25 marks out of 100.
Aggrieved, petitioner sought re-totalling wherein 'no change' was informed on 02.07.2012.
Still confident of having scored more marks, petitioner sought the answer scripts under Right to Information wherein finding that the totalling of marks in Sanskrit (General) has not been properly done, seeks redressal vide present petition.
2 W.P.No.156/2013 On being noticed the respondent Board while admitting their folly has come up with corrected Mark Sheet allotting 75 marks in Sanskrit (General).It is urged that since the grievance of the petitioner has been redressed the petition is rendered infrucutous.
The given facts however does not permit such a couRs.of rendering the petition infructuous.
There is carelessness on the part of respondent in totalling of marks in the answer script.
That is the fiRs.mistake.
The second mistake is committed when despite of applying for retotalling the petitioner is informed 'no change'.
That reflects the carelessness and a mechanical approach of the respondent Board and the manner in which the application for retotalling is dealt with.
The third mistake which the Board has committed is that mechanically it has issued the corrected Mark Sheet on 28.12.2012 without depicting distinctions.
These mistakes by the respondent Board have not only forced the petitioner to take shelter of the Court but must have caused mental agony and harassment .
Therefore, while compensating the petitioner with a cost of Rs.30,000/-, respondent Board is directed to issue 3 W.P.No.156/2013 fresh Mark- Sheet depicting the 'distinction' therein within 15 days from the date of communication of this order.
Furthermore, the cost of Rs.30,000/- shall be borne by the respondent Board alone.
Petition is allowed in the terms above.
(SANJAY YADAV) JUDGE Anand