ORDER
K.K. Lahoti, J.
1. The petitioner, who appeared in High School Examination, 2003 and was awarded ‘0 mark’ in Mathematics, has filed this petition for following directions :-
“(i) This Hon’ble Court may kindly be pleased to call the answer-book of Mathematics of the petitioner for kind perusal of this Hon’ble Court.
(ii) Suitable directions may kindly be issued to the respondent for making scrutiny/rechecking/proper valuation of the answer-book of mathematics of the petitioner.
(iii) For which this Hon’ble Court further be pleased to pass any such order as deems fit under the circumstances of the case.
(iv) To award cost of the petition.”
2. This petition was filed on 28-8-2003 and notice was issued in this petition to the respondent on 15-9-2003. On behalf of the respondent, notice was accepted by Miss J.L. Iyer, who is Standing Counsel for respondent and reply was filed by the respondent on 9-12-2003.
3. Facts of the case are that the petitioner who appeared in the High School Examination, 2003 was awarded ‘0 mark’ in Mathematics. The petitioner applied for retotailing/revaluation of the answer-sheet in time on 28th June, 2003. The contention of the petitioner is that the petitioner is a meritorious student. He obtained 81 per cent distinction marks in 8th class, which is apparent from the perusal of mark-sheet of 8th class (Annexure P- 1). In 9th class, the petitioner also got 92 marks in mathematics and he was declared passed in 1st class and he stood second in the merit list of the class. In the High School Certificate Examination, 2003, petitioner in other subjects got first class marks, but was awarded ‘0 mark’ in Mathematics with an opportunity to appear in Supplementary Examination. The petitioner contended in the petition that there is some mistake in the valuation or in tabulation in the marks of the petitioner and the petitioner’s answer-sheet should be revalued or rechecked. In this regard, the petitioner deposited requisite fee Rs. 200/- vide Annexure P-4. It appears that till the filing of the petition, the respondent has not informed the petitioner, outcome of the prayer of the petitioner for retotalling or revaluation of the answer-sheet. The respondent on 9-12-2003 filed the reply in which it is pleaded that on the basis of the application (Annexure R-2), dated 28-6-2003 when the answer sheet of the petitioner was checked, it revealed that the petitioner got 71 marks while in the mark-sheet he has been awarded ‘0 mark1. The aforesaid note-sheet was written on 14-7-2003 and it was approved by the concerned on 16-7-2003 but the revised result was declared on 7-9-2003 as is apparent from the perusal of document dated 7-9-2003. It is also stated by the respondent that one Alok Holkar who committed such lapse was deprived of all remuneration work by the respondent. In the reply, it is also stated that valuation of the petitioner’s answer book was done on 8-4-2003 at Indore and the marks obtained by the petitioner were forwarded to the Board in the prescribed format. This valuation report contains details of marks obtained by the petitioner alongwith counter signatures of the Deputy Head Valuer and Head Valuer/Supervisor. Photocopy of the tabulation sheet is produced on record as Annexure R-l. The respondent also produced original answer book of the petitioner for the perusal of the Court on 4-11-2003 and it revealed that the petitioner got 71 marks in the subject and the aforesaid marks were duly written on the front page of the answer-sheet where tabulation of all marks was made.
4. Looking to the seriousness, on 4-11-2003 an explanation was called from the Secretary of the Board. It will be pertinent to mention here that till that date the respondent had not filed reply and only produced answer sheet. On 19-11-2003, the Court directed respondent to submit the name of the valuer and to issue notice to him for his personal presence in the Court. On 10-12-2003, Suresh Dhage and Alok Holkar remained present in the Court and they were apprised with the situation and were directed to submit their explanations on affidavits. On 11-12-2003, Suresh Dhage and Alok Holkar filed their affidavits explaining the lapses, but their explanations were not satisfactory and they were informed if they require to seek any legal assistance, they may engage Counsel to defend their case. It also revealed that two more persons namely R.K. Agrawal and Smt. M Kulkarni also verified the fact that the petitioner got such marks in the subject and they tallied with the answer-sheet. These persons were also noticed to show cause in this regard.
5. Alok Holkar filed affidavit. He submitted in it, that on 8-4-2003, he completed his assigned work, but because of non- availability of the light and darkness, the Deputy Saheb directed him to help Suresh Dhage. Suresh Dhage was having all the answer-sheets from which he was speaking the marks and he was filling the counter-foil. He has only completed tabulation work as dictated by Suresh Dhage and thereafter he proceeded to his home. His reply is that he only helped Suresh Dhage. The answer-sheet was examined by Suresh Dhage, he only helped to fill up counter- foil as dictated by Suresh Dhage. He is not responsible for this nor he got remuneration for this work. He has also stated in Para 5 of the affidavit that it is responsibility of the Deputy Head Saheb to check the marks in counter-foil, tabulation sheet and it was the responsibility of Suresh Dhage to do all the formalities.
6. Suresh Dhage filed affidavit that he was the valuer of the answer book of the petitioner. He duly valued the answer book and filled up the mark on the front page of the answer-sheet, but the counter foil was not filled up by him. It happened because of the direction of the Deputy Saheb and this work was done by some other persons. He denied his responsibility. Suresh Dhage has also filed another explanation on 18-12-2003 in which he has stated that after valuation of the answer-sheet of the petitioner, he duly entered marks on the front page of the answer book with signatures by two valuers. He has also stated that the answer-sheets were pooled and roll number wise entry of marks were made in the file and counter foil by Alok Holkar, one of the valuers. The file and counter foil were checked and verified by R.K. Agrawal, Deputy Valuation Officer, followed by the counter signature of Mrs. M. Kulkarni, the Chief Valuation Officer of Maths subject posted in that particular valuation centre. He has further stated that the mistake had crept in while making entries in the counter-foil by Alok Holkar, which was duly verified by the valuation officer and the Chief Valuation Officer. By submitting aforesaid explanation, he has stated that there is no fault on his part.
7. R.K. Agrawal has not submitted any affidavit though he is represented by Counsel as is apparent from the perusal of order-sheet dated 18-12-2003.
8. Smt. M. Kulkarni who was Head Valuer of the Centre submitted her explanation in which she has stated that at the valuation centre, there were six Dy. Head Valuers with 110 valuers who were assigned the work of checking and valuation of answer books. Each of the valuer was given 60 answer books for correction and checking and on that day, there were approximately 4-6 thousand copies which were checked and valued by the valuers in the valuation centre of which she was the head. On 8-4-2003, petitioner’s answer book of mathematics subject was checked in the examination centre. The answer book was allotted to Suresh Dhage, U.T.D. Guru Nanak Public School, Indore. The answer book was checked and valued by Suresh Dhage and 71 out of 100 marks were awarded to the petitioner. After valuation, as per the procedure, the valuer of the answer book was himself required to fill the counter foil containing marks of 30 students, roll numbers of which arc mentioned in the said tabulation sheet itself. So far as petitioner’s marks were concerned, the counter foil was filled by Alok Holkar, UTD, Saraswati Shishu Mandir School, Indore. The said valuer filled ‘zero marks’ in the given column of counter-foil against the petitioner’s roll number, whereas the student was actually awarded 71 marks. The counterfoil was signed by Dy. Head Valuer, R.K. Agrawal. The answer books were duly supervised by Dy. Head Valuer, who was assigned the work of direct supervision of about 10 valuers each. After the signatures of the concerned valuer on the counter-foil and counter signatures of the Dy. Head Valuer, the counter-foil was lastly signed by her. In Para 6 of the affidavit, it is stated by her that the valuer of answer book is primarily responsible for filling the counter-foil containing marks obtained by 30 students on each counter-foil. On that date there were 4000-6000 answer books which were checked at the valuation centre of which she was the head Incharge. In these circumstances, when the counter- foil was already signed and counter signed by the valuer and Deputy Head Valuer, she also signed the same. The same was forwarded to the Board for declaration of the result. On the aforesaid contention, she submitted that it was an unintentional human error on part of the valuer and the Dy. Head Valuer and she also felt guilty by realising her mistake of countersigning the sheet, the error which was over looked owing to heavy work load in the examination centre.
9. In view of the aforesaid affidavits and looking to the seriousness of the matter, the matter may be considered. It is not in dispute that the petitioner is a meritorious student. He got 1st division marks in other subjects but he was declared fail in maths subject, though he was allowed opportunity to appear in the Supplementary Examination. It is fact of common knowledge that when such meritorious students are declared failed, they go in depression and face shame. There are instances when such students have gone in depression or have gone even to the extent to commit suicide. In this case, the petitioner immediately on 28th June, 2003 applied for retotalling of the answer book and the Board though detected the mistake on 14th July, 2003, but it did not do anything till 27th September, 2003 when the petitioner filed the petition and it appears that only after filing this petition, the result of the petitioner was declared as passed. During this period, the petitioner remained in dilemma and faced agony, shame. After nearabout four months of the commencement of the session, he was informed by the respondent about the error and he was declared passed in Ist division. The situation may be worse when the petitioner could have chosen any other unpleasant event. In this case the valuer Suresh Dhage who was responsible for filling the tabulation sheet has not done his work with due diligence. Alok Holkar, who filled up tabulation sheet has also not done his work with diligence. R.K. Agrawal, who was assigned the duty of Deputy Head Valuer has also not discharged his duly properly. All the aforesaid three persons have committed serious lapse and negligence which has caused serious prejudice, mental shock and agony to the petitioner. The Board who is responsible for the conduction of the examination, in spite of knowing the fact that the petitioner achieved 71 marks in the subject has been awarded ‘0 marks’ kept the matter standstill for a considerable period of nearabout 4 months. In the aforesaid circumstances, all the four are liable to pay due compensation to the petitioner in this regard. Though the responsibility of Smt. M. Kulkarni is also there being the Head Valuer of the Centre, but it appears that because of huge/heavy work at the centre and relying on the work of valuer and Dy. Head Valuer, she signed the papers bonafidely. As per her statement, there were 4 to 6 thousand answer-sheets for the valuation at the centre. It is humanly not possible to verify each and every answer-sheet by the Head Valuer. Though as the Head Valuer, she owes responsibility of the centre and in this regard she has stated her feeling in Para 7 of the affidavit. In these circumstances, explanation submitted by Smt. M. Kulkarni is accepted and it is directed that in future she will keep strict eye and supervision in the matter and shall try that such error is not occurred in future.
10. So far as valuer, Suresh Dhage is concerned, it was his responsibility to fill up the tabulation sheet when he awarded 71 marks to the petitioner in the subject, he ought to have remained vigilant when ‘0 mark’ was given in the tabulation sheet to the petitioner. In these circumstances, he is responsible for not discharging his duties carefully or with due diligence.
11. Alok Holkar, who has filled up tabulation sheet was required to recheck it before signing. Though his explanation is that on being dictated by Suresh Dhage, he filled up the tabulation sheet, but when he signed the tabulation sheet, it was his responsibility to check the marks with the answer-sheet honestly. Because of his act, the petitioner has been awarded ‘0 mark’ in the Maths. He is also responsible for the lapse/negligence in this matter.
12. R.K. Agrawal, who was the Deputy Head Valuer, owes duty to check each and every answer sheet with the tabulation sheet. As he has not discharged his duty honestly and has not submitted his explanation, then he can not escape from his responsibility. He remained negligent in discharging his duties and is also responsible for the lapse.
13. Considering totality of the facts, it will be proper if Ashok Holkar and Suresh Dhage both are directed to compensate petitioner by paying Rs. 10,000/- each and R.K. Agrawal who also owes his duty to check the answer-sheet with the tabulation sheet vigilantly is also responsible and he is liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner.
14. The Board which detected the error immediately on 14-7-2003 has not informed the petitioner immediately about the result and has kept the matter pending for a considerable long period and only after filing this petition, informed to the petitioner that he has achieved 71 marks in the subject. In the circumstances, respondent-Board of Secondary is also liable to pay Rs. 10,000/- to the petitioner as compensation.
15. In the aforesaid circumstances, this petition is allowed and following directions are issued :-
(i) The respondent-Board is directed to issue a fresh revised mark-sheet to the petitioner, if already not issued.
(ii) The respondent, Board of Secondary Education, R.K. Agrawal, Suresh Dhage and Alok Holkar are directed to pay Rs. 10,000/- each to the petitioner within a period of 30 days from today. It shall be responsibility of Board to collect the amount from these persons and to pay within time to the petitioner as directed.
(iii) The petitioner is also entitled for cost of this petition, which is quantified Rs. 1,000/- payable by respondent to the petitioner along with the aforesaid amount.