PRASHANT SHARMA Vs. MAHRSHI PATANJALI, SANSKRIT SANSTHAN BHOPALAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY this writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India petitioner has approached this Court for the relief in the form of writ of the nature of mandamus or direction to respondents to pay compensation to the petitioner at the rate of Rs. 2,00,000/ - per annum for three years from 2009 to 2012 with interest at the rate of 12% per annum.

(2.) THE aforesaid relief is claimed in the background of facts that the petitioner was a student in Gyan Ganga Sanskrit School. He appeared in 10th Board examination in the year 2008. Though he appeared in the practical examination for Science subject, but was declared absent. Accordingly, the mark -sheet was issued to him showing him absent in the said practical examination for Science subject. As a result, petitioner was not declared successful and was required to take supplementary examination in Science subject. Petitioner made a protracted correspondence with the respondents and asserted that he did appear in the practical examination for Science subject. There was no justification to show him absent and, therefore, the same be verified with the record and he be issued fresh mark -sheet. Having received no positive response, petitioner filed writ petition No. 5476/2009 before this Court with the prayer of the nature of direction to respondent No. 1 to issue a fresh mark -sheet showing the practical marks accorded to the petitioner. There was no prayer for any compensation in that writ petition. This Court while disposing of the writ petition No. 5476/2009 has observed that the assertion of the petitioner that he appeared in the practical examination for Science subject was admitted by respondent No. 3 in the counter affidavit, however, respondent No. 1 maintained the stand that it never received the marks awarded to the petitioner in the practical examination, therefore, he was shown as absent. Under such circumstances, this Court directed respondent No. 3 to verify and if marks were already not sent to respondent No. 1, the same be sent within a period of fifteen days from the date of production of copy of the order and if marks were already sent, then proof thereof be provided to respondent No. 1. Thereafter, respondent No. 1 was directed to act in accordance with law and issue appropriate revised mark -sheet by treating the petitioner as present in the said practical examination by assigning appropriate marks to the petitioner in the practical examination for Science subject. Though liberty was sought to claim damages in appropriate proceedings, but in absence of any relief in that behalf petitioner was left free to avail the remedy if available under the law. Accordingly, the writ petition was allowed to the said extent.

(3.) RESPONDENT No. 3 contended that after the judgment was rendered on 5/7/2012 in writ petition No. 5476/2009 it had sent the letter on 3/8/2012 to respondent No. 1 with the information that marks of practical examination of the petitioner were already sent to respondent No. 1 and thereafter another letter was issued on 3/11/2012 by respondent No. 1 for conducting re -practical examination of both the petitioners of writ petition No. 5476/2009, namely, Prashant Sharma and Rishi Godiyale. Again correspondence took place between respondents No. 3 and 1 to ascertain as to whether practical examination was to be conducted only in respect of Prashant Sharma or both as there are two petitioners in writ petition No. 5476/2009 and since the name of Rishi Godiyale; another writ petitioner, was not mentioned, guidance was sought by letter dated 5/11/2012. Respondent No. 1 vide communication dated 6/11/2012 directed respondent No. 3 to conduct practical examination of both petitioners, i.e. Prashant Sharma and Rishi Godiyale, and thereafter practical examination was conducted, wherein both petitioners of writ petition No. 5476/2009 appeared on 20/11/2012 and marks were sent to respondent No. 1 on 22/11/2012. Under such circumstances, it is submitted that respondent No. 3 is not responsible for the delay caused in issuance of revised mark -sheet.