ORDER
S.P. Khare, J.
1. This is a petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a direction to the respondent No. 1 for rechecking and retotalling of his answer books and for any other relief which this Court considers expedient.
2. The petitioner appeared in 12th Class examination in March, 1998 conducted by the respondent No. 1. His roll number was 23701527. The main result was declared on 15-6-1998. There was “RWL category” in this result. The roll number of the petitioner was also in this category. It was declared that the results of this category would be announced subsequently. The petitioner’s roll number came in this category because his answer book In “English” was missing. The result of the RWL category was declared on 5-8-1998 and the petitioner was declared passed in 1st Division. The mark sheet was
supplied to the petitioner on 7-8-1998. He applied for rechecking/retotalling of his answer books with a fee of Rs. 300/- on 18-8-1998. This application was delivered to the respondent No. 1 on 22-8-1998. This application was returned by the respondent No. 1 with the fee on the ground that it was not made within 30 days of the declaration of the main result as required by Regulation 119.
3. The respondent No. 1 has filed the return and stated therein that the application for verification of marks as per Regulation 119 can be made only within 30 days from the date of “declaration of examination results” and the application of the petitioner was after 30 days of the main declaration of result on 15-6-1998 and therefore it could not be entertained. The answer books are dumped after 120 days of the declaration of result and therefore, now there can be no verification of marks.
4. The learned counsel for the both the sides were heard. The result of the petitioner was admittedly not declared on 15-6-1998. It was declared on 5-8-1998. How could the petitioner apply for verification of the marks as per regulation 119 within 30 days from 15-6-1998? The date of declaration of result so far as the petitioner is concerned would be 5-8-1998 when his result was declared. He had admittedly made the application for verification of marks within 30 days from 5-8-1998. The stand taken by the respondent No. 1 that the application of the petitioner was barred by limitation is wholly unreasonable and absurd. It is devoid of common sense. The application of the petitioner could not be rejected so mechanically without application of mind. Any reasonable person sitting in the Board could not take a decision that the application was to be made within 30 days form 15-6-1998 when on that date the result of the petitioner was not declared. The period of 30 days could be reckoned from the date the result of the petitioner was declared. The Board of Secondary Education is an instrumentality of the State and it is expected to act in a just, fair and reasonable manner. Its approach should not be arbitrary. There should be fairness in action.
5. Now the contention of the respondent No. 1 is that the answer books have been dumped and it cannot do anything. This plea cannot be accepted. That is the creation of the respondent No. 1 by adopting an absured
approach and depriving the petitioner of his statutory right of verification of his marks. The Board was negligent in the first instance when the answer book of the petitioner of English paper was lost, secondly when the application of the petitioner for verification of his marks as per Regulation 119 was returned and thirdly by dumping his answer books. The Board must have an objective approach in respect of the matters which come before it and the authorities concerned must for a moment go into the armchair of the candidate or the person with whom it Is dealing and then consider the matter. By doing so the authorities of the Board would be able to reach a fair decision and their whimsical and arbitrary approach would be subdued.
6. The petition is allowed. The respondent No. 1 is directed to verify the marks of the petitioner in all the five Subjects for which he had applied within one month of the date of this order. In case the verification of marks cannot be done because of the dumping of the answer books the respondent No. 1 Is directed to pay an amount of Rs. 5000/- to the petitioner as compensation within two months of the date of this order. The Board may in turn recover this money from those who were at fault in rejecting the application of the petitioner as barred by limitation. (LDA v. M.K. Gupta, AIR 1994 SC 787.)