Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

PUSHPANJAI AVASTHI (MINOR) versus STATE OF U.P. AND OTHERS

High Court of Judicature at Allahabad

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Pushpanjai Avasthi (Minor) v. State Of U.P. And Others - WRIT - C No. 52295 of 2006 [2006] RD-AH 20233 (29 November 2006)

 

This is an UNCERTIFIED copy for information/reference. For authentic copy please refer to certified copy only. In case of any mistake, please bring it to the notice of Joint Registrar(Copying).

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE OF ALLAHABAD

Court No.33

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 52295 of 2006

Pushpanjali Avasthi (minor)       Vs. State of U.P. and others

Hon'ble Vineet Saran, J.

Heard Sri G.K.Maurya, learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned Standing Counsel appearing for the respondents.

The petitioner appeared in the High School Examination, 2006 and was declared fail as she was shown to have obtained only 4 marks in Sanskrit. In other papers of the High School Examination, 2006 the petitioner has obtained reasonably good marks averaging to 63%. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner has done very well in Sanskrit paper also and since there is no provision of revaluation of marks, she has filed this writ petition with a prayer for summoning the answer copy of Sanskrit Papers of High School Examination, 2006 and to award correct marks after getting the same re-examined.

This Court, vide order dated 20.9.2006, granted two weeks time to the learned Standing Counsel for filing counter affidavit and also to produce the answer copy of Sanskrit papers of the High School Examination, 2006 of the petitioner fixing 5.10.2006 as the next date. No counter affidavit has been filed and when the case was taken up on 2.11.2006, the learned Standing Counsel, appearing for the respondent no.1, informed the Court that an enquiry in the matter was going on, the report of which was likely to be submitted. Accordingly, this Court fixed 20.11.2006. On the said date the Court directed the learned Standing Counsel to produce the result of the enquiry report and case was directed to be listed today.

Today the learned Standing Counsel has produced the enquiry report and has made a statement that in the enquiry it was found that the answer copy of Sanskrit Paper of the petitioner was changed and that suitable action against the center in-charge and two Invigilators, who were found responsible for the same, has been taken. It has further been submitted that as provided under the Rules, average marks as obtained by the petitioner in other papers, have been awarded to her in Sanskrit paper and on 25.11.2006, the corrected mark-sheet of the petitioner has already been sent to the institution, from where the petitioner had appeared in the High School Examination.

In such view of the matter, the respondent-Board is directed to declare the petitioner as having passed the High School Examination, 2006 with first division marks and with 63% in Sanskrit Paper  and also provide the High School Certificate to the petitioner forthwith.

Keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has suffered mental agony and shock on account of being declared fail, whereas she has actually passed the High School Examination with first division marks, and also considering the fact that the petitioner has not been able to seek admission in Class 11, this Court has no option but to award compensation to her, which is assessed at Rs.20,000/-. The Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, U.P. Allahabad is directed to  pay the same to the petitioner by a bank draft payable in favour of the petitioner. Such bank draft shall be sent to the petitioner through the College from where she appeared in the High School Examination, 2006 within three weeks from today. It is further directed that the petitioner shall be permitted to appear in the Intermediate Examination 2007-2008 and her form be accepted even if the last date has expired.

Accordingly, this writ petition stands allowed with costs. It is, however, provided that the respondent-Board shall be at liberty to recover the costs/compensation amount of Rs.20,000/- from erring  officers.

A certified copy of this order may be given to the learned counsel for the parties within three days on payment of usual charges.  

Dt/-29.11.2006

Ru


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.