The Director of Government Examinations (Higher Secondary Examinations) vs Satish Kumar rep. by father and natural guardian R. Sampath and Anna University

P. Sathasivam, J.—The Director of Government Examinations (Higher Secondary Examinations), aggrieved by the order of the learned

single Judge dated 03.04.2001 made in W.P. No. 12781 of 1994 modified by order dated 22.06.2001, has filed the above writ appeal.

Though at the time of filing of the writ petition, the first respondent herein-writ petitioner was a minor, during the pendency of the writ appeal,

since he attained majority, by order dated 26.06.2002, the first respondent herein was declared as major. Though notice was taken to the address

given in the memorandum of grounds as well as another address at Bangalore given for service of notice on the first respondent, the fact remains

that till this date, in view of the fact that the full and correct address of the first respondent was not available to the appellant, the service could not

be effected.

The second respondent is represented by counsel.

Heard the learned Government Advocate for appellant as well as the second respondent University.

The first respondent herein filed W.P. No. 12781 of 1994 seeking to quash the proceedings of the Director of Government Examinations

(Higher Secondary Examinations), appellant herein - first respondent before the learned single Judge in Na.Ka. No. 1620/H2/94 dated

21.06.1994 and 01.07.1994 and consequently prayed for a direction to revaluate and re-total the marks of the petitioner in the subjects of Physics

and Mathematics in the Higher Secondary Examination taken by him in March/April, 1994 with Registration No.894202 and to issue the correct

marks to him in respect of the said subjects.

According to the writ petitioner Satish Kumar, he is a brilliant and outstanding student who studied in the Gill Adarsh Matriculation Higher

Secondary School. He had passed the Matriculation Examination (X Standard) in April 1992 by securing 949 marks. Thereafter, he wrote the

Higher Secondary Examination, for which he was assigned the Registration No.894202. According to him, he was expecting at least 95% in all

subjects and had aspired to join the professional course in Engineering. However, he was awarded 891 marks out of 1200. Immediately on receipt

of the mark sheet, he had opted for retotalling the marks in Tamil, Physics, Chemistry, Biology and Mathematics subjects and also paid the

requisite fee. By proceedings dated 21.06.1994, the Director of Government Examinations (Higher Secondary Examinations) has stated that on

retotalling the Physics answer papers, the same score has been obtained and by communication dated 01.07.1994, the writ petitioner was

informed that there is no change in the marks on retotalling.

It is the further case of the writ petitioner that he made an application for admission to the first B.E. Course in the Anna University and obtained

94.6% of marks.

In the course of hearing before the learned single Judge, the respondents therein conceded that fraud had been played in valuing the papers and

informed the Court that the writ petitioner had obtained 1126 marks out of 1200 marks. Before knowing the marks, he applied for B.E. Course in

the year 1994-95 and he was not accommodated. However, in view of the revised mark sheet which was supplied to him at a later point, he had

been accommodated in the next year namely, 1995-96 in B.E. Electronics and Communication. It is further seen that after completing his course,

he was working at Bangalore and at the time of filing of the writ petition, he was employed in the United States and earning $55,000/-.

The learned single Judge, after finding that because of the conduct of the respondents therein, the petitioner had lost one precious year, directed

them to pay a sum of Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees twenty five thousand only) as damages within a period of three months. By subsequent order dated

22.06.2001 on the representation of the Anna University, the earlier direction was modified and Anna University was exonerated from payment of

damages and the first respondent therein - the Director of Government Examinations (Higher Secondary Examinations), the appellant herein alone

was asked to pay the compensation amount of Rs. 25,000/-. The said direction is being challenged in this writ appeal.

Learned Government Advocate has brought to our notice that the appellant - the Director of Government Examinations (Higher Secondary

Examinations) was not in any way responsible and it was only due to the malpractice committed at the examination centre by changing the

Registration Number, the writ petitioner was awarded lesser marks. He also brought to our notice that the marks due to the writ petitioner were

ascertained after due enquiry and a corrected mark sheet was issued to him even on 24.10.1994 itself. In those circumstances, according to the

learned Government Advocate, the learned single Judge is not justified in awarding damages.

It is true that the writ petitioner secured higher marks namely 1126 out of 1200. However, his mark sheet contained only 891 marks out of

1200. It is seen that in the enquiry, it was found out that one Munner (Registration No.894189) who appeared for +2 examination in March 1994

has committed malpractice by changing the Registration Nos.894202 and 894196 in the answer papers of two other students as Registration

No.894189 in order to get higher marks. It is also the claim of the appellant that the learned single Judge failed to note that the malpractice would

have been committed in the examination centre, namely the Gill Adarsh Matriculation Higher Secondary School, Royapettah, Chennai - 14. It is

also brought to our notice that the said malpractice committed by Munner came to light when he repeated the same in the Tamil Nadu Professional

Courses Entrance Examination 1994 held by Anna University. It is also not in dispute that as soon as the appellant came to know about the correct

marks secured by the writ petitioner, a corrected mark sheet was issued to him on 24.10.1994 itself. Though the writ petitioner had lost one year,

the fact remains that in the subsequent year, he secured admission in B.E. Course based on the corrected mark sheet and he also completed his

course and was employed initially at Bangalore and finally settled in the United States. Taking note of the fact that the malpractice had been

committed at the examination centre by one Munner, candidate with Registration No. 894189, we are of the view that the learned single Judge is

not justified in awarding damages to the extent of Rs. 25,000/-. It is made clear that we are not under-estimating the agony of the writ petitioner.

At the same time, it is relevant to note that after conducting due enquiry and after ascertaining the correct marks of the writ petitioner and after

entering the same, the corrected mark sheet was issued to him, without further delay.

Taking note of all these aspects and the present position of the writ petitioner, whose correct address and whereabouts not known and the

appellant was not able to ascertain inspite of his best efforts, while confirming the order of the learned single Judge, we are of the view that the

award of damages is not warranted. Accordingly, the direction of the learned Single Judge, regarding payment of damages to the extent of Rs.

25,000/- by the appellant herein-first respondent before the learned single Judge is set aside. The writ appeal is allowed to the extent mentioned

above. No costs. Consequently connected miscellaneous petition is closed.