Allahabad High Court
Dan Bihari Sharma vs Up Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad & ... on 10 October, 2017
Bench: Arun Tandon, Rajiv Joshi
HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
AFR
Court No. - 10
Case :- FIRST APPEAL No. - 845 of 2012
Appellant :- Dan Bihari Sharma
Respondent :- Up Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad & Another
Counsel for Appellant :- In Person,D.B. Sharma
Counsel for Respondent :- Madan Mohan,P.S. Verma,S.C.
Hon'ble Arun Tandon,J.
Hon'ble Rajiv Joshi,J.
Heard Sri Dan Bihari Sharma, the plaintiff in person.
This first appeal under Section 96 of the Civil Procedure Court has been filed against the judgement and order of the trial court passed in original suit no. 306 of 2004 Dan Bihari Sharma Vs. U.P. Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Regional Office Through Secretary, Meerut and Another.
Under the judgement and order dated 28.8.2010, the trial court returned a finding that there has been some lapse on the part of the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad Regional Office, Meerut in providing the mark-sheet of the intermediate examination of the year 1996 to the writ petitioner. However, while answering issue no.2, it has been held that absolutely no material has been placed before the court below, which could justify the compensation of Rs. 50 lacs as claimed by the plaintiff in the matter of lapse on the part of the defendant no.1 in supplying the mark-sheet pertaining to the intermediate examination of the year 1996. Accordingly, the suit filed has been partly allowed, however, the relief for grant of compensation has been rejected. It is against this part of the judgement of the trial court refusing the grant of compensation as paid for by the plaintiff that present appeal has been filed.
The facts on record disclosed that the petitioner had appeared in the intermediate examination conducted by the Uttar Pradesh Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad in the year 1996 as a private student from Vrindavan Vidhyapeeth Inter College. According to the plaintiff, he was allotted Roll No. 706319. The result of the examination was declared and the plaintiff was shown absent in book-craft examination and accordingly, he was declared failed in the intermediate examination. According to the plaintiff, the result so declared, was incorrect as he had appeared in the book-craft practical examination and the Board were not correct in declaring him absent in the said practical paper. According to the plaintiff, he had approached to the Chief Minister of the Uttar Pradesh. In response thereto, the Regional Secretary write a letter dated 22.9.1999 informing that the result of the petitioner has been completed and he has been awarded marks in book-craft examination also. The revised result has been forwarded to the Principal through the office of the D.I.O.S. The Principal of the institution, however, informed vide letter dated 22.9.1999 that no revised result has been received. To similar effect is the letter written by District Inspector of Schools dated 10.8.1999.
It is admitted that vide letter dated 27.7.2001, counsel for the plaintiff was informed of his intermediate examination result and that he has secured 234 marks and had passed the examination in Second Division, which was also forwarded to the plaintiff by the office of the District Inspector of Schools through the Principal of defendant no.2, the institution. The plaintiff approached the principal of the college alongwith the aforesaid letter and the principal refused to have received any such information orally.
It was the case of the plaintiff that because of such inordinate delay and uncooperative attitude of the respondent that the plaintiff could not pursue his studies after intermediate examination. Had his result been declared earlier, he would have been successful in getting admitted to B.T.C. Training Course. At the relevant time, there was no competition in the matter of admission to B.T.C Course. After completing the B.T.C. Course, he would have earned salary. The total loss has accordingly been quantified by the plaintiff as Rs. 15 lacs.
We need not enter into the issue pertaining to the negligence which has been attributed to the office of the Regional Office of Madhyamik Shiksha Parishad, Meerut, U.P. or to the principal of respondent no.2, the institution in the matter of correct intermediate mark-sheet being not supplied to the petitioner inasmuch as the findings in that regard has gone in favour of the plaintiff-appellant and that no cross appeal has been filed by any of the defendants.
For the purpose of this appeal, therefore, we have to accept the finding of the trial court that there has been some negligence/lapse on the part of the defendants, in not providing the revised mark-sheet to the plaintiff within reasonable time.
This takes the Court to the issue, which has been agitated before us namely that the amount of compensation prayed for by the plaintiff because of the such negligence/lapse on the part of the Intermediate Board was fair, the same being denied by the trial court.
We have carefully gone through the entire pleadings as well as evidence, which has been laid by the plaintiff in support of quantification of the compensation so claimed. We find that except for making vague allegation that the plaintiff would have been admitted to B.T.C. Course and would have earned salary, no specific particulars about the salary payable to a teacher appointed after passing the B.T.C examination during the relevant years has been disclosed to the Court. It has also not been disclosed that all these candidates, who had passed the intermediate examination in the year 1996 had been admitted to which B.T.C. Course and with reference to which advertisement. In absence of any material being available on record, the trial court appears to be more than justified in returning a finding that the compensation so claimed by the plaintiff was imaginary, illusionary and not supported by any material evidence. The trial court in our opinion appears to be more than correct in the facts of the case to have refused the compensation as claimed, specifically for want of necessary evidence and necessary pleadings in support thereof.
Appeal lacks merit and is, accordingly, dismissed.
Order Date :- 10.10.2017/Noman
