# Sunil Kumar Yadav v. State of U.P. and others

- **Citation:** (2007) 2 ILRA 621
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2007-01-31
- **Case number:** Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23722 of 2005
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-kumar-yadav-v-state-of-u-p-and-others-40970
- **Pages:** 3

## Headnote

Constitution
of
India,
Art-226-
Education- petitioner appeared in High
School examination- in Science I, II and
III paper awarded 19, 0, and 24 marks-
similarly in Social Science I and II paper
awarded 30 and 0 marks- result of
Scrutiny communicated as " no change"-
despite of repeated time granted no
counter affidavit filed- officers appeared
in person- informed to Court as the
answer sheet of both subjects missing-
average marks awarded- nothing about
action taken against such negligent and
guilty officer- held- the student who
passed in Ist division wrongly informed
to be passed in second division- for
mental shock and agony- Board to pay
compensation of Rs.50,000/- with liberty
to recover the same from the person
held liable for such negligence.

Held: Para 4

A student, who had actually passed with
good first division marks, was declared
pass with second division marks, and he
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
was even misinformed by order dated-
19.1.200 that there was no change after
scrutiny. Because of such action of the
Board, the petitioner must have suffered
mental agony, for which he would be
entitled for compensation. This Court
finds that in the present circumstances,
an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be
appropriate compensation which may be
paid as costs for the loss caused to the
petitioner on account of gross negligence
on the part of the respondent-Board.

## Text

2 All] Sunil Kumar Yadav V. State of U.P. and others
621
Court of India the judgments relied upon
by the respondents can be of no help and
are distinguishable on facts.

28. At this stage this Court may also
deal with the issue/objections raised on
behalf of respondents to the effect that the
petitioner has an remedy by way of an
appeal against the determination of the
seniority
before
the
Regional
Joint
Director of Education concerned and
therefore, the writ petition may be
dismissed on the ground of statutory
alternative remedy.

29. Since the parties have exchanged
their affidavits and have addressed the
Court on merits, this Court is satisfied that
it would not be fair, just and equitable in
the facts of the present case to insist upon
the petitioner to avail his alternative
remedy after more than three years of his .
having filed the first writ petition being
Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 53693 Of
2003, more so when upon the dispute of
seniority, another issue qua the ad-hoc
appointment on the post of Principal has
intervened.

30. In view of the aforesaid the
seniority list issued by the Authorized
Controller of the institution dated 8th July,
2003 as well as the order 30th June, 2006
issued by the District Inspector of
Schools, Sant Ravi Das Nagar, Bhadohi
offering appointment to Sri Shiv Bahadur
Singh (respondent no.5) on the post of
officiating principal cannot be legally
sustained and are hereby quashed.

31. Both the writ petitions are
accordingly allowed. Respondents are
directed to offer ad-hoc appointment on
the
post
of
Principal,
strictly
in
accordance with Section-18 of the U.P.
Secondary Education Services Selection
Board Act, 1982 and in light of the
observations made above.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 31.01.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE VINEET SARAN, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No. 23722 of 2005

Sunil Kumar Yadav

...Petitioner
Versus.
State of U.P. and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri Om Prakash Srivastava
Sri S.C. Srivastava

Counsel for the Respondents:
S.C.

Constitution
of
India,
Art-226-
Education- petitioner appeared in High
School examination- in Science I, II and
III paper awarded 19, 0, and 24 marks-
similarly in Social Science I and II paper
awarded 30 and 0 marks- result of
Scrutiny communicated as " no change"-
despite of repeated time granted no
counter affidavit filed- officers appeared
in person- informed to Court as the
answer sheet of both subjects missing-
average marks awarded- nothing about
action taken against such negligent and
guilty officer- held- the student who
passed in Ist division wrongly informed
to be passed in second division- for
mental shock and agony- Board to pay
compensation of Rs.50,000/- with liberty
to recover the same from the person
held liable for such negligence.

Held: Para 4

A student, who had actually passed with
good first division marks, was declared
pass with second division marks, and he
622 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES [2007
was even misinformed by order dated-
19.1.200 that there was no change after
scrutiny. Because of such action of the
Board, the petitioner must have suffered
mental agony, for which he would be
entitled for compensation. This Court
finds that in the present circumstances,
an amount of Rs.50,000/- would be
appropriate compensation which may be
paid as costs for the loss caused to the
petitioner on account of gross negligence
on the part of the respondent-Board.

(Delivered by Hon'ble Vineet Saran. J.)

1. Heard learned counsel for the
petitioner as well as learned Standing
Counsel appearing for the respondents.
Despite time having been granted, no
counter affidavit has been filed. Today an
affidavit has been filed by the respondents
annexing therewith the inquiry report,
which is being taken on record. In such
circumstances, this writ petition has been
heard and is being disposed of at this
stage.

2. The petitioner appeared in High
School Examination 2004 and was
declared pass with. second division
marks. In Science Papers I, II and III he
was awarded 19, zero and 24 marks
respectively and in Social Science Papers
I and II he was awarded 30 and zero
marks
respectively.
The
petitioner
thereafter applied for scrutiny of Science
Paper II and Social Science Paper II, in
which he had been awarded zero marks.
The Assistant Secretary of the Board, by
his letter dated 19.1.2005, communicated
to the petitioner that after scrutiny there
was no change in the marks awarded to
him. Challenging the said order, this writ
petition has been filed, with a further
prayer that if the copies of the petitioner
had been lost, then average marks be
awarded.

3. Today an affidavit has been filed
by the respondent-Board annexing a copy
of the inquiry report dated 27.5.2005,
wherein it has been held that the answer
copies of the aforesaid papers of the
petitioner had been lost because of which
he had been awarded zero marks, and
action
against
three
persons
found
responsible has been recommended to be
initiated. However, in the affidavit it has
nowhere been stated as to what action has
yet been taken against the said persons
who have been found guilty on the basis
of inquiry report which was submitted
more than 18 months back. This is a clear
example of gross negligence on the part
of the respondent-Board; firstly by
awarding zero marks to the candidate in
such papers, the copies of which had been
lost; and secondly, communicating to the
petitioner on his application for scrutiny,
that there was no change of marks· after
scrutiny, as when the answer copies of the
petitioner had been lost, how could they
have been scrutinized.

4. Learned Standing Counsel has
made a statement that the relevant Rules
provide that in case the copy of a
candidate is lost, the candidate is to be
awarded average marks. In the present
case, the learned Standing Counsel has
stated that the petitioner has now been
awarded average marks on the basis of
marks obtained by him in other papers,
and fresh mark sheet has already been
issued to him by the respondent-Board on
22.12.2006. This has been done only after
the respondent-Board was granted time
for producing the answer copies. The
Court was not informed of any inquiry
having been conducted by the respondentBoard in which it had already been found
that the answer copies of the petitioner
were lost. It is also note worthy that for
2 All] Satish Chandra Yadav V. Union of India and others
623
nearly two years, such facts were
withheld from this Court, as no counter
affidavit has been filed. Only when the
Board was cornered and did not have any
plausible reply to the averments made in
the writ petition, that they then applied the
Rule of awarding average marks, which
had been recommended in the inquiry
report submitted 18 months back. It has
been stated that after awarding the
average marks, the petitioner has now
passed the High School Examination,
2004 with first division marks. This is
nothing but a case of gross negligence on
the part of the respondent-Board. A
student, who had actually passed with
good first division marks, was declared
pass with second division marks, and he
was even misinformed by order dated-
19.1.200 that there was no change after
scrutiny. Because of such action of the
Board, the petitioner must have suffered
mental agony, for which he would be
entitled for compensation. This Court
finds that in the present circumstances, an
amount
of
Rs.50,000/-
would
be
appropriate compensation which may be
paid as costs for the loss caused to the
petitioner on account of gross negligence
on the part of the respondent-Board.

5. Accordingly, this writ petition
stands allowed with costs. The order
dated
19.1.2005
passed
by
the
respondent-Board is quashed and the
corrected mark sheet after awarding
average marks in the two papers in which
the answer copies of the petitioner had
been lost, be issued to the petitioner
forthwith, if not already issued. It is
directed that the Secretary, Madhyamik
Shiksha Parishad, U.P., Allahabad shall
ensure that the cost of Rs.50,000/- is paid
to the petitioner by way of Bank draft
through the College from where he had
appeared in the High School Examination
2004, within one month from today. It is
further provided that the respondentBoard shall be at liberty to recover the
said cost from the persons/officials found
guilty of the negligence of losing the
answer copies and further informing the
petitioner that on scrutiny, there had been
no change even when the copies were
missing, but the same may be done only
after giving adequate opportunity of
hearing to the persons concerned.
Petition allowed.
---------
ORIGINAL JURISDICTION
CIVIL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 20.04.2007

BEFORE
THE HON'BLE ANJANI KUMAR, J.
THE HON'BLE SUDHIR AGARWAL, J.

Civil Misc. Writ Petition No.20094 of 2007

Satish Chandra Yadav
...Petitioner
Versus
Union of India and others ...Respondents

Counsel for the Petitioner:
Sri I.N. Singh
Sri Ajay Yadav

Counsel for the Respondents:
Addl. Solicitor General of India

Kendriya Vidyalay Sangathan-Para 81
(b)-Dismissal
without
Departmental
Enquiry-petitioner
a
P.G.T.
teacher
attempted to outrage modesty of a girl
student-enquiry officer Prima facie found
guilty-of moral turpitude including moral
sexual
behaviour-held-change
very
serious-a teacher should be model for his
pupils-can not be a teacher of such
conduct- No interference called for.

Held: Para 6