AKULA SRIKANYA JYOTHSNA Vs. COMMISSIONER OF GOVERNMENT EXAMINATIONS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The writ petition is filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the first respondent-The Commissioner of Government Examinations, Government of Andhra Pradesh, Gun foundry, Abids, Hyderabad-1, to produce the answer script of the petitioner in Mathematics Paper-I and Paper-II of S.S.C. Public examination conducted in the month of March, 1998 with Roll No. 1069365 and allot the correctly evaluated marks. It is the case of the petitioner that she has appeared for the S.S.C. examination and that she was expecting first class marks in mathematics. However, she was declared to have passed successfully on the basis of grace marks awarded by the Government. In the mathematics paper, it is stated, even though she ought to have secured much more marks, passing of the examination by grace marks was not satisfying the consciousness of the petitioner. Therefore, she filed this Writ Petition for producing the answer script and properly and correctly evaluate the answers.

(2.) Learned Government Pleader, on instructions, now submits that due to oversight marks were wrongly allotted to the petitioner and the answer script of the petitioner has now been scrutinised and now it is found that the petitioner secured 77 marks in mathematics paper. It is also stated by the learned Government Pleader the two candidates were given the common hall ticket number viz., No. 1069365. On account of this confusion, the mistake had occurred and it is stated that in future proper care will be taken not to repeat such omission or commission. In view of this submission, I need not go into the merits of the case. Suffice it to state that the petitioner has passed the mathematics paper with 77 marks without adding grace marks. This kind of lapse has to be viewed seriously as it involves the educational career of young students. When the petitioner was expecting higher marks, she was only declared to have passed the examination with grace marks; and ultimately when it was found that she secured 77 marks, the feeling of the petitioner has to be assuaged. The administrative lapse on the ground that due to over-sight the marks were not properly allotted can be hardly said to be an extenuating circumstance in this regard. I, therefore, find that it is a fit case where the respondents have to be mulcted with costs.

(3.) Keeping in view the circumstances of the case, the respondents are directed to pay a sum of Rs.2,000-00 (Rupees two thousand only) as a measure of compensation to the petitioner within a period of four weeks from today.