YATISH KUMAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) -Heard learned counsel for the petitioner as well as Sri Anil Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respondent-University. Pleadings have been exchanged and with consent of learned counsel for the parties, this writ petition is being disposed of at this stage.

(2.) THE petitioner was granted admission in B.Sc. Part I with Physics, Mathematics and Statistics as subjects and he appeared in the said examination of B.Sc. Part I. However, in the mark-sheet issued to the petitioner, he has been shown as absent in Chemistry Papers and thus declared fail. THEreafter, the petitioner approached the Registrar of the University by way of filing an application dated 15.12.2005 for correction in the mark-sheet as he did not have Chemistry as a subject and had appeared in Physics, Mathematics and Statistics Papers. When no action was taken on the said application, the petitioner filed a representation before the Vice Chancellor on 16.1.2006. However, both the authorities did not take any decision on the application/ representation of the petitioner and, thus, he has filed this writ petition with the prayer to correct the mark-sheet of the petitioner and show Statistics as subject in place of the Chemistry. A further prayer has been made that a fresh mark-sheet be issued showing the marks earned by the petitioner in Statistics in place of Chemistry.

(3.) IN the present case, had the action been taken on the application/ representation of the petitioner for correcting the mistake, the petitioner would not have had to come to Court. Further, once the University had itself rectified the mistake and corrected the mark-sheet, and the petitioner had appeared in B.Sc. Part II Examination, it was the duty of the respondent-authorities to ensure that the result of the petitioner of B.Sc. Part II was declared alongwith other candidates. Taking an excuse that the same could not be done for the technical reason of pendency of the writ petition (without even there being any stay order) and would now be done, further shows negligence on the part of University Authorities towards its students. The explanation of the University is certainly not worthy of acceptance and it shows their complete indifference towards their own duty. As such, in my view, the petitioner would be entitled to be compensated for the mental agony and loss caused to him, which this Court assessed at Rs. 10,000 and which shall be paid to the petitioner as costs.