Full Judgment
K.N. Goyal, J.
1. This is a plaintiffs second appeal arising out of a suit for compensation.
2. The plaintiff was an intermediate student in Anglo Sanskrit College, Mawana, defendant No. 5 in 1961-62. He was detained on the ground of short attendance. He challenged the action of the authorities by means of a regular suit which although dismissed by the trial Court was decreed on appeal. It was held by the court that the college authorities had not maintained the attendance register in accordance with regulations. While the regulations required that attendance should be recorded for each lecture the College authorities recorded attendance only twice in the day, once in the morning and again after the mid-day recess. On this ground the action of the authorities in detaining the plaintiff-appellant on the ground of shortage of attendance was held to be illegal and a declaration was made in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and the relief of injunction was also granted. He had already been allowed to appear at the examination under an interim order of the Court but his result was not directed to be declared. Ultimately when the result was declared in pursuance of the said decree of the Court one year had already passed. He was declared as having passed in the Second Division. The plaintiff thus suffered a loss of one year in his studies. He thereafter brought the present suit for compensation in respect of the injury thus suffered. He claimed a sum of Rs. 10,000/- as compensation. The suit was filed against the Board of High School and Intermediate Education, the State of U. P., the District Inspector of Schools and also against the Principal of the College (who had since retired) and against the College as well. The suit has been dismissed by both the courts below on the ground that the same was not maintainable.
3. I have heard learned counsel for the appellant. The learned counsel has contended that the Principal of the College had undoubtedly failed to comply with the regulations of the Board in regard to maintenance of attendance register, as held in the earlier suit. In view of the judgment in the earlier suit, which operates as res judicata, it has to be assumed that the Principal did not maintain the attendance register in accordance with the regulations. It is also correct that theplaintiff did suffer a loss of one year on, account of his having been detained. This does not however lead to the conclusion that the plaintiff is entitled to maintain an action for compensation. Every breach of a legal provision does not give rise to an action in Tort. The provision in the re- gulations regarding the form of maintainance of attendance register did not, for the purposes of law of Torts, entail a 'duty', on the part of the Principal towards the students, a breach of which would be actionable. The mere fact that the Principal misinterpreted the regulations in that behalf does not lead to the conclusion that he committed an actionable wrong. If the Principal's action was ultra vires the appellant has already secured the reliefs admissible, viz., those of declaration and injunction. It is unfortunate that due to the passage of time in the decision of his earlier suit his success in the litigation did not prove very fruitful. However, the present claim of the plaintiff does not fall under any of the heads of torts recognised in common law. The statutory provisions do not provide for any compensation in the circumstances mentioned above.
4. I thus find no force in this appeal which is hereby dismissed. But in the circumstances the parties shall bear their own costs in this Court.