BOARD OF SECONDARY EDUCATION Vs. RAKESH KEWAT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal preferred under section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Uchcha Nyayalaya (Khand Nyaypeeth Ko Appeal) Adhiniyam, 2005 defensibility of the order dated 23-3-2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. No. 12969/08 is called in question.

(2.) THE facts which are requisite to be exposited are that the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 herein, invoked the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issue of a writ of mandamus to the Board of Secondary Education, Bhopal (for short 'the Board') to declare his result of Class XII Examination which he had undertaken in March, 2008. In consequential relief it was prayed that on declaration of such result if it is found that the petitioner was entitled to appear in the supplementary examination to give a direction to revaluate the answer scripts or to permit him to appear in the supplementary examination and to issue a further direction for taking provisional admission in college. As is evident, the undisputable facts are that the writ petitioner, the respondent No. 1 herein, was informed about the cancellation of his results on a complaint of copying allegedly reported by the Centre Superintendent. Subsequently the information was found to be incorrect. Roll number of the respondent No. 1 had got mixed up with another roll number. After the mistake was detected his result was declared on 26-8-2008 and the mark-sheet was issued on 27-8-2008 wherein he was shown having supplementary in the subject of English (General). By that time the supplementary examination was already over. THE Board realising its mistake permitted him to appear in the examination to be held in the year 2009.

(3.) IT is submitted by Mr. Mourya, learned Counsel for the appellant that the learned Single Judge has fallen into serious error by awarding compensation to the respondent No. 1 without taking note of the fact situation that when the Board conducts the examination at a large scale mistakes of this nature are likely to occur. IT is his further submission that in the absence of any kind of impropriety by the Board awarding of compensation is absolutely unjustified. IT is canvassed by him that the action of the Board was not mala fide or biased and hence, no compensation should have been awarded.