Uttaranchal High Court: Sharad Kumar Sharma, J., disposed of a writ petition which was filed in order to issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent 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.
The petitioner was a student, who had taken his high-school examination of the year 2020, which was conducted by respondent 2. The result of the High School examination for the year 2020, was declared and consequently, after the declaration of the result on 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 had 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 had submitted that mark sheet which was issued to him 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. After the order of the coordinate Bench of this Court 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.
The Court observed that the grievance of the petitioner stood redressed 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.
The Court disposed of the petition holding that respondent was irresponsible and had acted with absolute irresponsibility in the computation of marks and this correspondence itself will amount to be an admission of the fact. The Court further directed that on account of the irresponsible manner in which the office of respondent 2; has discharged his responsibility in evaluating the answer sheet of the students by assigning lesser marks than marks actually obtained, they were imposed with the cost of Rs 50,000 to be paid to the petitioner, for both mental, physical and social harassment, caused to him and his family.[Pulkit Shukla v. State of Uttarakhand, Writ Petition (M/S) No. 13 of 2021, decided on 11-01-2021]
Suchita Shukla, Editorial Assistant has put this story together
