Chaudhary Charan Singh University and Another vs Bindeshwari Verma and Others

The present Special Appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 16th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge, insofar as it directs the University to pay Rs. 50,000/- as compensation to the Respondent No. 1.

We have heard Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Sri V.K. Mishra, learned Counsel represents Respondent No. 1, learned Standing Counsel represents Respondent No. 2 and have perused the impugned order dated 16th March, 2011 passed by the learned Single Judge giving rise to the present appeal, the grounds taken in the memo of appeal and documents filed along with it.

It appears that the Respondent No. 1, who was student of B.Ed Course 2007-08 was pursuing her studies in Modern Institute of Teachers Education, Ghaziabad. She appeared in all the papers in the examination conducted by the Chaudhary Charan Singh University, Meerut. However, in the subject ''Teaching of Home Science'' she was marked absent while in the subject ''Development of Learner and Teaching Learning Process,'' she obtained very less marks. She applied for appearing in the back papers in both the subjects. Permission was granted and she appeared in the back papers. In the result of the back papers, her marks increased from 51 to 67 in ''Development of Learner and Teaching Learning Process'' out of 100. However, in the subject ''Teaching of Home Science'' she was awarded ''0'' marks. She applied for scrutiny, which was refused. Thereafter, she made an application under the Right to Information Act. The request was not acceded, whereupon, she approached this Court by means of the writ petition giving rise to the present appeal.

Looking to the marks obtained by her in other papers the Court directed the Appellant to produce the answer books of the subject ''Teaching of Home Science'', which was produced and it transpired that she had secured 72 out of 100 marks. The Appellant was not in a position to give any satisfactory explanation for the lapses occurred on the part of the University authorities. Learned Single Judge taking into consideration the academic career and the interest of the Respondent No. 1 imposed the cost of Rs. 50,000/-.

Sri Anurag Khanna, learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the learned Single Judge was not justified in imposing such a huge cost as there was neither any pleading in the writ petition for payment of compensation nor facts otherwise warranted for imposition of huge cost without holding the University guilty of negligence.

We are not going into the merit regarding the aforesaid two submissions made by Sri Anurag Khanna, but from the narration of fact mentioned herein before, we are of the considered opinion that some lapse did occurred on the part of the University authorities. Admittedly the Respondent No. 1 obtained 72 out of 100 marks in subject ''Teaching of Home Science'' whereas she was awarded ''0'' marks in the back paper and the effort of getting the answer books scrutinized as also getting the information under the Right to Information Act was deliberately stalled by the University. That being the position, we are of the considered opinion that the University should compensate the Respondent No. 1. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case we are of the considered opinion that imposition of cost/compensation of Rs. 50,000/- is excessive. In the interest of justice, we deem it proper to reduce the cost of Rs. 50,000/- to Rs. 10,000/-.

The appeal stands disposed of as above.